SZBZE v Minister for Immigration

[2004] FMCA 542

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBZE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 542

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – whether applicant failed to comply with orders of Registrar concerning filing of amended application – where amendments were filed but were ambiguous and unclear – where application was unlikely to succeed.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Applicant: SZBZE

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 2542 of 2003

Delivered on: 23 August 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 23 August 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Kinslor

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,200.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 2542 of 2003

SZBZE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant has filed an amended application.  That was done on 5 July 2004.  The particulars of the amended application are as follows:

   "(a)The Tribunal to consider in assessing the chance of the applicant being arrested and/or persecuted on his return to India based on the fact that he was a member of a particular social group, Muslim minority in India and political opinion in India.

   "(b)The Tribunal's satisfaction that the applicant is not a refugee was not based upon reasoning which provided a rational or logical foundation for this belief.”

2. The applicant has been assisted here by a pro bono solicitor for whose help the court the is grateful.  The respondent urges that the amended application does not comply with the orders of the registrar insofar as it is not particularised and is not particularly easy to understand.

3. I have considered the reasons for decision of the Tribunal handed down on 2 October 2003 in respect of which the applicant seeks review.

4. The applicant's claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution based upon his religious affiliation of Muslim living in a village which was 99 per cent Hindu, was considered by the Tribunal so it cannot be said that his claims to have been persecuted because he is a member of a Muslim minority was ignored.

5. What happened at the Tribunal was that the applicant then changed his story considerably and appeared to be indicating to the Tribunal that he had moved to Madras and had lived in that city for two years prior to coming to Australia, during which time he had been employed for 18 months.  The Tribunal pointed out to him that this was inconsistent with his previous allegations concerning problems he was having in his native village.  The Tribunal also asked the applicant why he did not remain in Madras where there did not seem to be any indication of persecution for religious reasons.  The applicant responded that he preferred to come to Australia because he would earn more money in this country.  The Tribunal, not unnaturally, considered that it was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

6. It seems to me that it would not be appropriate to leave this matter in the list any longer. It is quite clear that the applicant's grounds for review are not satisfactory given their lack of relationship with the facts as pleaded and in those circumstances I propose to dismiss these proceedings pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03(2)(b) and pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $1,200.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate: 

Date: