SZCNS v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCNS & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 2014

MIGRATION – RRT decision – Indonesian claiming political, religious and ethnic persecution – Tribunal not satisfied as to well-founded fear – no jurisdictional error found.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: SZCNS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1218 of 2007

Judgment of: Smith FM

Hearing date: 26 November 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 26 November 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms R Francois

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The applicant’s wife and children are included as applicants.

2. The application is dismissed.

3. The applicant SZCNS pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $5,000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1218 of 2007

SZCNS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. The applicant SZCNS arrived in Australia in February 1997, and his wife and their first child arrived soon after. They have another child who was born in Australia in 2001. On 20 February 2003 they all applied for protection visas, relying on a claim of the husband to fear persecution if they returned to their country of nationality, Indonesia. I shall refer to the husband as the applicant, but note that I have ordered that the other members of his family are also joined as applicants, since they were parties to the matter before the Tribunal.

2. The applicant claimed that he feared persecution by agents or former agents of the Indonesian government, who had been responsible for the death of one of his brothers in 1985, when he was detained as a student activist and died in custody. He claimed: “as a consequence, our family has been under constant threat from the Indonesian police”. He also claimed that “as Christians with Chinese background, our family became an easy target every time rioting/lootings happened”. He claimed that as a Christian he was at risk of persecution by Muslims, and that people with Chinese ethnicity and Christian religion had suffered discrimination in Indonesia. His solicitor's submissions also claimed that the applicant was at risk of persecution by Muslim fundamentalists as a person who would be perceived to be a supporter of the West, both because of his Christian, non-Muslim background, and also arising from his period of residence in Australia.

3. A delegate refused the visa applications on 13 March 2003, and the applicant appealed to the Tribunal, where he was represented by a solicitor in the course of three attempts by the Tribunal to arrive at a valid decision. The first two decisions were set aside by consent in this Court. The third decision of the Tribunal, dated 8 March 2007, was handed down on 20 March 2007, and affirmed the delegate's decision. It is this decision, which I am today reviewing.

4. The Tribunal clearly identified the applicant's claims…