SZCGV v Minister for Immigration

[2004] FMCA 865

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCGV  v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 865

MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of RRT decision – where applicant failed to file an amended application as ordered by the Registrar – where application for judicial review failed to particularise claims of jurisdictional error – whether application should be dismissed for non-compliance with orders of the Court.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Applicant: SZCGV

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 2858 of 2003

Delivered on: 5 November 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 5 November 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Christopher Levingston & Associates

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the amount of $900 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2858 of 2004

SZCGV

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant sought a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 17 November 2003 and handed down on 10 December 2003. On 22 December 2003 he lodged an application with this court.  The grounds contained in the application indicated:

   i.We strongly believe that decision of the RRT does have an error of law as all the facts have not been considered before making the decision;

   ii.The situation in our country is not normal and Hindu - Muslim riots are still going on and our lives are in danger if we go back to India.  Our case comes under the criterion of the term Refugee;

   iii.That decision made by the RRT is unjust and against the principles of natural justice;

   iv.That procedures required by law to be followed were not followed.

2. The matter came before the court on 24 March 2004 at which time the Registrar made orders, including an order that the applicant was to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review relied upon by the applicant to the court by 25 August 2004.  The applicant did not file and serve an amended application and the respondent sought that the matter be brought back before me at this non-compliance list.  The applicant attended today and was assisted, with the court's gratitude, by Mr Prince on a pro bono basis.

3. As I explained to Mr Prince, a quick glance at the reasons for decision indicated that the applicant did not attend the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal came to the view that on the limited information available it could not be satisfied about the applicant's claim that he was persecuted by Muslim extremists and was unable to avail himself of protection in India. 

4. As the applicant has made no reasonable attempt to provide particulars of jurisdictional error, as opposed to providing particulars of factual matters which the court is not allowed to take into account, and noting the grounds upon which the Tribunal came to its original decision, I am of the view that it is not in the interests of the applicant or the administration of justice that this matter be allowed to continue. 

5. I therefore dismiss the application pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03(2)(b) Federal Magistrates Court rules for failing to take a step required by the rules or comply with an order of the court. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, which I assess in the sum of $900 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate: 

Date:  24 November 2004