SZBPF v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBPF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1085

MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of RRT – where applicant gave a different name for his authorised recipient in the response to hearing form – whether this constituted a change to his authorised representative – whether failure to advise “second” authorised representative of the handing down of decision constituted jurisdictional error.

Migration Act 1958, ss.424A, 441G, 359
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Re Minister for Immigration: Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212
Chen v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1000

Applicant: SZBPF

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: SYG2087 of 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 25 July 2005

Date of Last Submission: 25 July 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 25 July 2005

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Reilly

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 $4,000 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2087 of 2003

SZBPF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Fiji of Indian ethnicity.  He arrived in Australia on 12 May 2002. On 31 May 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 20 December 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 8 January 2003 the applicant applied for review of that decision.

2. The applicant's application for review to the Refugee Review Tribunal is found at [CB 53 to 56]. On the second page [CB 54] there is found section C. This indicates that an applicant can nominate someone to receive correspondence and to act on his behalf; that person is known as the “authorised recipient”. The applicant completed that part of the form naming Christopher Muthu of Ozi-Land Immigration Consultants as his authorised recipient. The effect of making this decision was to bring into force s.441G of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”) which is in the following form:

“Authorised recipient

(1) If:

(a) a person (the applicant ) applies for review of an RRT-reviewable decision; and

(b) the applicant gives the Tribunal written notice of the name and address of another person (the authorised recipient) authorised by the applicant to do things on behalf of the applicant that consist of, or include, receiving documents in connection with the review;

the Tribunal must give the authorised recipient, instead of the applicant, any document that it would otherwise have given to the applicant.

Note: If the Tribunal gives a person a document by a method specified in section 441A, the person is taken to have received the document at the time specified in section 441C in respect of that method.

(2)If the Tribunal…