SZBCN v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBCN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 1037

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where applicant claimed to be a member of a particular social class – whether Tribunal properly considered all relevant matters – where Tribunal found inconsistencies in applicant’s evidence.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.424

NAMM v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCAFC 32
Kamal v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 818
NARE v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 554

Applicant: SZBCN

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG 1522 of 2003

Delivered on: 22 December 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 22 December 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondent: M Allars

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 $4,250 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1522 of 2004

SZBCN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.   He arrived in Australia on 23 December 2001.  On 18 January 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 26 June 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 9 July 2002 the applicant applied for review of that decision. 

2. Before the delegate made his decision he had written to the applicant on 17 May 2002 providing him with certain information which may be taken into account when a decision was made upon the protection visa.  The letter indicated that the material contained might lead the decision maker to reject the application.  The letter from the delegate is set out at [CB 71-72].  It invited comments from the applicant but the response received was only a request for further time. 

3. On 6 August 2002 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.424 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) inviting him to provide further information about his claims. The letter written to the applicant is set out at [CB 74]. The applicant responded to that letter on 15 April 2003. He provided advice that in relation to some of the matters he had no evidence. He corrected something within his statement about dates and advised that further information would be submitted later.

4. The Tribunal conducted a hearing in the presence of the applicant and an interpreter.  On 18 June 2003 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant the protection visa and it handed that decision down on 15 June 2003. 

5. The applicant arrived in this country on a business visa in the application for which he had indicated that he was a managing partner of a company that was “a firm of professional consultants, commission agents, as well as reputed importers and dealers of hospital,…