SZBOW v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBOW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 750

MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – summary dismissal – no reasonable cause of action. 

Applicant: SZBOW

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG2077 of 2003

Delivered on: 28 October 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 28 October 2004

Judgment of: Barnes FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Jordan

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. That the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

2. That the solicitor for the respondent Minister notify the applicant of the orders made today and also of the effect of Rule 16.05(2) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

3. That the applicant pay the respondent Minister's costs set in the amount of $2,800. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2077 of 2003

SZBOW

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is an application filed on 2 September 2004 by the respondent seeking summary dismissal of proceedings initiated by the applicant pursuant to Rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

2. The applicant, by an application filed on 7 October 2003 sought review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) which was handed down on 28 August 2003 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant her a protection visa.  For the purposes of this judgment I refer to the applicant in the application filed on

   
   

   7 October 2003 as ‘the Applicant’.

3. The Applicant is a national of Mongolia who claimed to fear persecution for reason of political opinion as a supporter of the Mongolian Democratic Party on the basis that she claimed to have been denied freedom of political expression.  Her application was refused.  She sought review by the Tribunal, repeated her claims but did not provide any further material or evidence. 

4. On 24 June 2003 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting her to attend a hearing scheduled for 28 July 2003.  The letter was sent to the applicant at the address provided in the review application and a copy was sent to her adviser at the other address provided in the review application.  The letter specified the time, date and place of the hearing, and included a statement of the effect of section 426A of the Migration Act and warned that the Tribunal may proceed to a decision without taking any further action if the applicant failed to attend the hearing. 

5. The Tribunal reasons for decision state that the applicant did not reply to the invitation of 24 June 2003, failed to attend the hearing scheduled for 28 July 2003 and that no explanation for the failure to attend was received by the Tribunal.  Nor is there anything in the material before me to suggest…