SZBUG v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBUG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 156

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – Where the applicant sought an adjournment – where the adjournment was not granted – where the applicant alleges that the Tribunal failed to make any reference to the independent country reports available to reach its decision – where the Tribunal is exempt from the provision of s.424A by virtue of the fact that the information was of a general nature and fell within the s.424A(3)(a) exemption – whether the Tribunal failed to investigate the applicant’s claim fairly and extensively – whether this would amount to a breach of procedural fairness.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A(3)(b), 91A

SAAP v Minister for Immigration  [2005] 79 ALJR 1009
Minister for Immigration v Al Shamry [2001] 110 FCR 27
Seyfarth v Minister for Immigration  [2004] FCA 1713
Minister for Immigration v SGLB [2004] 207 ALR 12
SZATG v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1595
VCAK of 2002 vMinister for Immigration [2004] FCA 459

Applicant: SZBUG

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2320 of 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 2 February 2006

Date of Last Submission: 2 February 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 2 February 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant In Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K Morgan

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.

3. Leave granted for the Refugee Review Tribunal to be joined as the second respondent.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2230 of 2003

SZBUG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  He is a Sikh. He arrived in Australia on 30 April 2002.  On 11 June 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 15 October 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 8 November 2002 the applicant applied for review of that decision.  The Tribunal caused a hearing to be held at which the applicant appeared on

   
   

   10 September 2003.  On 11 September 2003 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant a protection visa.  The Tribunal handed that decision down on 7 October 2003.  On 31 October 2003 the applicant through a firm of solicitors lodged an application seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal in this court.

2. A directions hearing was held on 17 March 2004 at which the applicant was represented by a solicitor.  One of the orders made by the Registrar on that day was that the applicant file and serve any amended application and any evidence upon which he proposed to rely by

   
   

   26 May 2004.  That order was not complied with and no…