SZCEO v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCEO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 330

MIGRATION — Review of decision of RRT – where the Tribunal was not able to reach an adequate state of satisfaction on the information that it had before it – whether a duty to inquire may have arisen – whether the Tribunal failed to provide the applicant of particulars in writing of information that it considered was the reason, or part of the reason, for the decision.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.422B

NAST v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 86
Minister for Immigration v SGLB [2004] 207 ALR 12
Zekiroski v Ministerfor Immigration [2004] FCA 1288
SZEEU vMinister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 2

Applicant: SZCEO

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2759 of 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 24 February 2006

Date of Last Submission: 24 February 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 24 February 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in Person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay respondents costs assessed in the sum of $5,000.

3. The Refugee Review Tribunal to be joined as the second respondent in these proceedings.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2759 of 2003

SZCEO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  He arrived in Australia on

   
   

   18 August 2002.  On 6 September 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 12 November 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on

   
   

   25 November 2002 the applicant applied for review of that decision. On 18 July 2003 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant informing him that it had considered the material before it in relation to his application but was unable to make a decision in his favour on that information alone.  The applicant was invited to a hearing of the Tribunal to take place on 20 October 2003.  A letter was written to the applicant at the address given by the applicant as his address for service.  On 8 October 2003, some 12 days before the hearing, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal telling it that he had just received the letter and stating:

   “…Madam I had been out of town and have received this letter late moreover I have to be at work, which is again out of Sydney till Christmas, as the project has to be completed before Christmas.  I've been working on this project otherwise I will lose my job.

   Hence I request you madam to kindly postpone my hearing date.  I will be highly obliged if the hearing can be done after Christmas.”

2. The applicant then provided the Tribunal with another address to which the Tribunal wrote on 10 October 2003 advising him that it had…