SZFEE v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFEE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1267

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of a decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – Applicant a citizen of Mongolia – no reviewable error.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

NAST & NASU v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 86
SZANR v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1075 at [7]

Applicant: SZFEE

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: SYG 3553 of 2004

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 12 August 2005

Date of Last Submission: 12 August 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 August 2005

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Alex
Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3553 of 2004

SZFEE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal that was made on 15 October 2004 and handed down on 4 November 2004.  The decision of the Tribunal was to affirm the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 

2. The relevant facts are that the applicant arrived in Australia from his native Mongolia on 19 February 2004.  On 5 April 2004 he applied for a protection visa.  He claimed that he left Mongolia because of political pressure and violence directed towards himself and his family involving physical and psychological torture, massive intimidation and destruction of property.  He said that he feared that he would be arrested, denied a fair trial and imprisoned if he were to return to Mongolia.  He said that he feared that this harm would come from the Mongolian government and an intelligence agent.  He said in his application that this would happen because he was against the Mongolian people’s revolutionary party and the government. 

3. The applicant does not speak or write English but his brother,

   
   

   who apparently resides in Australia, helped him to prepare his application.  On 13 May 2004 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant him a protection visa.  On 9 June 2004 he made an application to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of that decision. 

   
   

   In his application for review he set out in some two and a half pages why he had been wrongly treated in Mongolia and why he feared he would be persecuted if he had to return there.  He gave his then home address and did not provide any other address for correspondence. 

4. The applicant says that he consulted a migration agent.  He was unable to provide any information about the migration agent except that he said that the agent…