SZCBB v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 210

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCBB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 210

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where applicant resiled from his written statements – where Tribunal not satisfied of applicant’s claim to protection.

Migration Act 1958, ss.422B, 424A(3)(a), 427(1)(d)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601
Minister for Immigration v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12
Minister for Immigration v VSAF (2003) [2005] FCAFC 73
Craig v South Australia 184 CLR 193
SAAP v Minister for Immigration (2005) 215 ALR 162
VAF v Minister for Immigration (2004) 206 ALR 471
SZDQL v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 769
SZEBX v Minister for Immigration [2005] FAC 1197

Applicant: SZCBB

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG2617 of 2003

Judgment of: Raphael     FM

Hearing date: 30 January 2006

Date of Last Submission: 30 January 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 30 January 2006

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Mason

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $5,000.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

3. Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as Second Respondent.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2617 of 2003

SZCBB

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 arrived in Australia on 1 March 2002 as a holder of a temporary business entrant visa.  On 27 March 2002 he applied for a protection (Class XA) visa from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. On 19 September 2002 that application was refused by a delegate of the Minister.  On 24 September 2002 the applicant lodged an application for review of the decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The applicant was invited to a hearing by the Tribunal, which he attended.  He had wished for his adviser to attend with him but his adviser was recovering from a hospitalisation and the Tribunal declined to grant an adjournment of the hearing date.

2. The Tribunal did, however, allow the adviser some time to provide additional representations to it after the hearing.  On 21 October 2003 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant a protection visa and it handed that decision down on 13 November 2003. 

3. The applicant is a Muslim living in the State of Tamil Nadu.  He claimed an association with a Muslim political group.  He claimed that his brother who was also involved in sectarian politics had been arrested and tortured and imprisoned.  In his original application for a visa the applicant indicated that he had suffered similarly for his political beliefs.  However, when he gave evidence at the Tribunal he resiled from many of these claims and gave a…