SZARO v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZARO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 490

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where applicant sought protection visa as result of her activities as a member of social group comprised of women seeking equal opportunity in the workplace – where applicant did not attend Tribunal hearing – whether the findings and reasons of the Tribunal evidence jurisdictional error or a denial of procedural fairness.

Federal Court Rules 1979

, O 54B r 2

Migration Act 1958

(Cth), s.48A

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, R 21.02(2)(a)

NARE v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 554

Applicant: SZARO

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 956 of 2003

Delivered on: 28 July 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 28 July 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $2,250 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 956 of 2003

SZARO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Thailand who arrived in Australia on 13 September 2002.  On 28 October 2002 she lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 31 October 2002 the delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 9 December 2002 the applicant applied for review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 24 March 2003 advising her that it had considered the material before it in relation to her application but was unable to make a decision in her favour on this information alone.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing on 15 April 2003.  On 9 April 2003 a migration agent on behalf of the applicant signed a form delivered to the Refugee Review Tribunal advising it that she did not wish to come to the hearing [CB 67].

2. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the information before it. It was the same information that had been before the delegate and a statement from the applicant found at [CB 56] to [58]. The statement indicated that the applicant was a sales assistant who began working in a large shopping centre in Bangkok in 1992. During her employment she came to the view that young women in Thailand were discriminated against by not being provided with equal opportunities. She says that she formed a small group and began holding meetings and publishing propaganda. She says that she gave speeches in shopping malls and streets. Her statement goes on to say that in December 1999 she seriously annoyed her employer as a result of her political activity and she was sacked. Thereafter she was visited by the local…