SZCPH v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 83
•21 January 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZCPH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 83 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – application for summary dismissal – where applicant did not attend the hearing of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no reviewable error. |
| Applicant: | SZCPH |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG 242 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 21 January 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 21 January 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Chami |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The Application is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 242 of 2004
| SZCPH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for summary dismissal of the Applicants application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. That decision affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant to the Applicants a protection visa. The decision was handed down on 14 January 2004. The Applicants consulted one Ajay Kumar, migration agent, to act for them. They gave his name and address as the place to which documents should be sent.
They lodged an application to the Refugee Review Tribunal and were advised of the hearing date. The Applicants say that their migration adviser advised them not to attend the hearing. It is well known in this court that a decision not to attend a hearing of the Refugee Review Tribunal does an Applicant a serious disservice. I cannot see any possible reason why a migration agent would be so ill-advised as to inform a client that the client would be better off if he or she did not attend the hearing of the Refugee Review Tribunal. It is a serious error.
The Applicant has said that because he lived in Griffith he was not able to take advantage of the pilot legal advice scheme. A person telephoned him last July but due to his lack of knowledge of English he was unable to understand him. Mr Chami for the Respondent has pointed out that that was seven months ago and the Applicant should have taken some steps to obtain legal advice especially when it was to be made available to him free of charge.
The Applicant’s application does not set out any particulars other than a complaint that the Tribunal did not consider the facts at least in a way that the Applicants wished. There is no evidence that the RRT decision involved an error of law. There is no evidence that the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to accord the Applicant procedural fairness. They invited him to a hearing but he did not go based on wrong advice but the Tribunal could not know that. They sent the notice of hearing to the address that they were given in plenty of time. The Tribunal considered the matters that were before it but in the absence of further evidence from the Applicant the Tribunal was not able to make a decision in his favour. There is no reviewable error on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
The Respondent has appropriately sought summary dismissal of the application. The application is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the application in the sum of $2000. I require a transcript of my reasons for this decision. The application is removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation. The application, of course, is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: V Lee
Date: 16 February 2005
0
0
0