SZHSJ v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHSJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1368

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse a protection visa to the applicant – applicant a citizen of People's Republic of China – no reviewable error.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss. 425, 426A, 474

SBBS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 361
Plaintiff S157 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Capitly (1999) FCA 193
NALQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 121

Applicant: SZHSJ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 3518 of 2005

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 6 September 2006

Date of last submission: 6 September 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 6 September 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In Person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Bird

Solicitors for the Respondent: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3518 of 2005

SZHSJ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal signed its decision on 19^th October and handed that decision down on 8^th November 2005. 

2. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a Delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa. 

3. The Applicant seeks a review of that decision although does not say in either his application or his amended application exactly what orders he wants. He did say, however, at the end of his application:

   Thank you so much for your attention to this application and hope I can get a fair justice and this case can be reassessed by Refugee Review Tribunal. 

4. In my view, the Applicant is seeking an order setting aside the Tribunal's decision and an order in the nature of mandamus sending his application back to the Tribunal for consideration. 

Background

1. The Applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China, who arrived in this country on 13^th February 2005. He applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 11^th March, but this application was refused on 12^th April 2005.  The Applicant then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of that decision. He lodged his application on 9^th May 2005. 

2. The Applicant did not provide any information to the Tribunal with his application; he provided a mobile telephone number, and asked that his correspondence should be sent not to his residential address in a suburb of Sydney but to a mailing address in the city of…