SZBED v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 72

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBED v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 72

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming religious persecution in India – no jurisdictional error asserted – application dismissed.

Applicant: SZBED

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG1577 of 2003

Delivered on: 2 February 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 2 February 2005

Judgment of: Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms K Gettens
Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1577 of 2003

SZBED

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) made on 30 June 2003 and handed down on 24 July 2003.  The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  Relevant background facts are contained in written submissions prepared on behalf of the Minister by Ms Gettens.  I adopt by way of background paragraphs 2 to 10 of those written submissions: 

   The applicant is a national of India (court book, page 30) who arrived in Australia on 21 February 2002 (court book, page 40).  He lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa on 19 March 2002 (court book, page 1). 

   The applicant's claims were set out in a statement submitted with the protection visa application (court book, pages 1-29) and were to the following effect:

   a)A Muslim terrorist group called "Al Umma" killed his father because he was an active member of "Hindu Munani" (court book, page 16);

   b)The Muslim group then diverted its attention to the applicant, as the only son of his father.  The applicant fled for his life to Singapore.  While he was away, the Muslim group burned his house down and killed his wife (court book, page 17); and

   c)When the applicant returned to India to care for his children, he moved to Chennai and remarried.  However, the Muslim group tracked him down, and utilising the local tensions between Muslims and Hindus, looted his business and tried to kill him (court book, page 17ff). 

   The application was refused by a delegate of the respondent on 14 June 2002 (court book, pages 49-54).  Whilst the delegate accepted that the applicant's father may have been killed some years ago in a clash with the Al Umma, there was no evidence to suggest that this organisation caused the death of the applicant's first wife, or that it had any interest in the applicant, given that he had not taken part in any activities of the Hindu group (court book, page 53).  The delegate also noted if the applicant did hold a genuine fear, he could…