SZEUI v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEUI & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 2134

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – whether Tribunal complied with s.425 Migration Act 1958 upon matter being remitted – where Tribunal wrote s.424A letter to applicant – whether letter raised legitimate expectation that other information be provided to applicant.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss. 422B, 424A, 425

SZHLM v Ministerfor Immigration [2007] FCA 1100
Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Minister for Immigration v Kurtovic (1990) 21 FCR 193
NBKT v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 195

First Applicant: SZEUI

Second Applicant: SZEUJ

Third Applicant: SZGAR

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 3010 of 2006

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 19 December 2007

Date of last submission: 19 December 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 19 December 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T Ower

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. First and Second Applicants to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,800.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3010 of 2006

SZEUI

First Applicant

SZEUJ

Second Applicant

SZGAR

Third Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The application before me today seeks review of the third decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal in respect of the applicant family. The grounds of the application found in a further amended application filed on 19 December 2007 are narrow but interesting, and I am grateful to both counsel for their assistance.

2. The substantive applicant, who is the husband and the father of the other two applicants, did not attend a hearing before the first Tribunal. When that decision was remitted he did attend a hearing before the second Tribunal. When that decision was remitted the third Tribunal had before it the second decision which included a record of the hearing. The applicant was invited to a further hearing by the third Tribunal. He sought to put off that hearing due to an accident to his wife. The Tribunal considered the request and granted a short adjournment but the applicant did not attend on the revised date, which was 21 August 2006.

3. On that day the Tribunal wrote a letter to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”). The letter [CB88]-[89] advised the applicant that the Tribunal had information that would, subject to any comments he might make, be the reason or part of the reason for deciding that he was not entitled to a protection visa.

4. It then listed two items of information. The first piece of information related to evidence given to the Department in the primary application form and the apparently inconsistent evidence given to the second Tribunal concerning an attack that the applicant alleged had occurred. It also dealt with…