SZCRS v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 81

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCRS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 81

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application to dismiss the applicant’s substantive application – not complied with the order to file an amended application – applicant a citizen of India – no reviewable error.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A

Applicant: SZCRS

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG 370 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

1. The Application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 370 of 2004

SZCRS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application to dismiss the Applicant's substantive application on the basis that he has not fully complied with the order to file an amended application setting out the particulars upon which he relies.  He has forwarded a letter to the court but all it does is repeat his views that the RRT did not consider the facts of his case properly.  He pointed out that his migration agent had not told him that the hearing was on but had sent a notice to the Refugee Review Tribunal saying that the Applicant did not want to appear at the hearing.  The migration agent did not ask for an adjournment of the hearing and it appears that the Applicant had not told him at that stage of his change of address within Griffith.

2. Even if I were to take the Applicant's letter as an amended application, it gives no indication of any error of law on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal or any lack of procedural fairness or any bias or bad faith.  The Applicant had given his migration agent's address as the place to where notices should be sent and that is exactly what the Tribunal did.  The Applicant may well have some claim against his migration agent if the facts are as he says they are.  The Applicant has not complied with the direction of the court but even if I take a very generous view of the rules the Applicant's letter does not set out any ground.

3. There is no power to order the Refugee Review Tribunal to hear the matter or to hear the Applicant's evidence when he was given that opportunity and did not take that opportunity up.  The fact that the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant's case is unfortunate but the question of the veracity or otherwise of facts is a matter for the Tribunal not for the court.  There is no power to order a further hearing by the RRT on compassionate grounds.  The Applicant has not filed an amended application.  In any case, his letter does not provide any particulars of any error of jurisdiction or any reviewable error.  All it does is question the factual basis upon which the Tribunal may rely.  The application must be dismissed.

4. I make the orders according to the Schedule. I direct that a transcript of the reasons for decision be made.  The application is removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  V Lee

Date:  14 February 2005