SZASD v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZASD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 472

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – finding by the RRT that it lacked jurisdiction as the application to the RRT had been withdrawn – subsequent claim by the applicant that she did not intend to withdraw her application – confirmation by the RRT of its decision on jurisdiction – the RRT correctly found that the review application had been withdrawn and that therefore it lacked jurisdiction – application dismissed.

COSTS – Refusal of a costs order where the presiding member’s reasons not provided to the applicant and not included in the court book.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Boal Quay Wharfingers Limited v King’s Lynn Conservancy Board [1971] 1 WLR 1558
Christie v Neaves (2001) 113 FCR 279
Raru v Minister for Immigration (1993) 119 ALR 314
Re Minister for Immigration v Palme [2003] HCA 56
Re Queensland Nickel Management Pty Ltd and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (No 3) (1992) 28 ALD 368
Schipp v Herfords Pty Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 412
Uniden Australia Pty Ltd v The Collector of Customs (1997) 74 FCR 190

Applicant: SZASD

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ987 of 2003

Delivered on: 29 July 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 29 July 2004

Judgment of: Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J D Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. There is no order as to costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ987 of 2003

SZASD

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application to review a decision or decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) made in early May 2003.  The circumstances are somewhat unusual.  The relevant background facts are set out in written submissions prepared on behalf the Minister by Mr Smith.  I adopt paragraphs 1-11 of those written submissions for the purposes of this judgment:

   This is an application for review of a decision of the RRT that the RRT did not have jurisdiction to review a decision of a delegate of the respondent. The delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa.

   The ground of the application is that the RRT made a mistake in finding that the applicant had withdrawn her application for review.

   On 8 August 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for a protection visa.  On 20 August 2002 a delegate of the respondent made a decision refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa and on 12 September 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the RRT for review of the delegate’s decision.  The issue in the proceedings arises out of the circumstances which followed the lodging of the application.

   On 29 January 2003 the RRT sent the applicant a…