SZAUF v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAUF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 862

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where Tribunal is of the view that treatment received by the applicant did not amount to persecution.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.91R

NARE v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 554

Applicant: SZAUF & ORS

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG1109 of 2003

Delivered on: 15 November 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 15 November 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 to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,250 pursuant to Part 21, Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1109 of 2004

SZAUF & ORS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There are four applicants in these proceedings, a husband, wife and two children.  Both the husband and wife have separate applications.  At the commencement of the proceedings I made orders that the first and second applicant act as litigation guardians to the third and fourth applicants.  The third and fourth applicants have no independent applications to make.  All four applicants are Sri Lankan citizens who arrived in Australia on 16 May 2001.  On 28 June 2001 they lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

2. On 12 August 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant protection visas and on 6 September 2002 the applicants applied for review of that decision.  The male applicant gave oral evidence to the Tribunal on 14 February 2003 that the female applicant was suffering from anxiety attacks and other problems and so a statement was received on her behalf.  On 2 May 2003 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant protection visas and handed down that decision on 27 May 2003.

3. The applicants made an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision on 18 June 2003 claiming that the Tribunal had made an error of law by not accepting them as refugees.  On 21 July 2004 an amended application was filed.  According to the applicant this was as a result of certain legal advice, certainly the amended application has the look of a document prepared by a person who understands the law in this area, it is only to be regretted that if that person is a lawyer he or she did not identify themselves to the court.

4. The claims which the male applicant made to the delegate in the Tribunal were that he had a well founded fear of persecution for the Convention reasons of race, religion and political opinion because he was a Tamil who had, through his brother, some association with the LTTE.  His wife who is not a Tamil claimed that her grounds for…