SZCHP v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCHP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2005] FMCA 1099

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – whether the applicant made a claim that he belonged to a particular social group – where the applicant’s complaint concerning the rejection of certain evidence by the Tribunal is considered an attempt  to ask the court to engage in merits review – where the applicant failed to be specific in his complaint.

Migration Act 1958, s.424A

NARE v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 554
SZDFO v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1192

Applicant: SZCHP

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2885 of 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 29 July 2005

Date of Last Submission: 29 July 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 29 July 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Wigney

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

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

3. Leave is granted to the applicant to join in these proceedings as second respondent the Refugee Review Tribunal.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2885 of 2003

SZCHP

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 24 December 2002.  On 31 December 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 27 June 2003 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 10 July 2003 the applicant applied for review of that decision.  The Tribunal wrote to the applicant offering him an opportunity to attend a hearing as it had considered the material before it in relation to his application but was unable to make a decision in his favor on that information alone.  The applicant attended the hearing and the Tribunal made a decision to affirm the decision of the delegate on 3 November 2003 which it handed down on 27 November 2003.

2. The visit to Australia on 24 December 2002 was not the applicant's first visit.  He first came to this country in 1998 to study and made several return visits to India before his final arrival.  The applicant is a Muslim from the state of Tamil Nadu and he claims to have a well founded fear of persecution for the convention reason of religion and membership of a particular social group.  He told the Tribunal that he and his family were arrested on 11 March 2002 and taken to a local police station where a false case was filed against them.  He said they were placed in jail and were tortured and three days later they were produced at the Tandjor local court where they were sentenced to three months imprisonment without bail. In jail they were tortured by Hindus…