SZECT v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZECT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 132

MIGRATION – RRT decision – Indian fearing persecution from political conflicts – not shown file note of conversation with Dubai employer – no prejudice found.

Migration Act1958 (Cth), ss.422B, 424A, 425, 483A, Part 8
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B

Applicant NAFF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) HCA 62
Pfizer Pty Ltd v Birkett (2001) 112 FCR 305
Minister for Local Government v South Sydney City Council (2002) 55 NSWLR 381
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2002) 211 CLR 476

Applicant: SZECT

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG 2453 of 2004

Delivered on: 2 February 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 2 February 2005

Judgment of: Smith FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Bird

Solicitors for the Respondent: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $4000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2453 of 2004

SZECT

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application under s.483A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) seeking review of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 25 June 2004 and handed down on 22 July 2004. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate refusing a protection visa to the applicant.

2. Section 483A gives the Court “the same jurisdiction as the Federal Court in relation to a matter arising under this Act”.  That jurisdiction is a general judicial review jurisdiction subject to limitations under

   
   

   Part 8 of the Migration Act. As interpreted in Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2002) 211 CLR 476, the limitations have the effect that I cannot set aside the Tribunal decision and remit the case for further consideration unless I am satisfied that there has been a jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal.

3. The Court does not have power to consider the merits of the factual assessments made by the Tribunal and to remit the matter merely on the basis that it disagrees with that assessment or that it has sympathy for the applicant and considers that his circumstances should be considered again. 

4. In the present case, the applicant entered Australia on 6 December 2003 on a student visa and applied on 12 January 2004 for a protection visa.  He does not seem to have received assistance from a migration agent or lawyer at any stage in his proceedings including in this Court. 

5. In a statement attached to his protection visa application he indicated that he was an Indian national of the Christian religion, who had been brought up in Kerala State and had received an education including a Bachelor of Commerce degree and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications and qualifications as a Chartered Accountant.  He said that most of his family were active supporters of the leading political…