SZICE v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 160

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZICE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 160

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – summary dismissal of judicial review application as disclosing no arguable case.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)

Applicant: SZICE

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG107 of 2006

Judgment of: Driver FM

Hearing date: 8 February 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 8 February 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms N Johnson
Sparke Helmore

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

1. Pursuant to rule 44.11(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), there shall be an immediate hearing under rule 44.12.

2. The Court directs that the name of the applicant is not to appear on the transcript of proceedings.

3. The application is dismissed.

4. The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application fixed in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court scale of costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG107 of 2006

SZICE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. I have before me an application for an order to show cause why relief should not be granted in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”).  The application was filed on 12 January 2006 in respect of decision handed down on 22 December 2005.  The application was clearly filed within time.  On its face, the application fails to disclose any coherent jurisdictional error.  The applicant was not able to advance any clear reason why there should not be an immediate show cause hearing today. 

2. The matter came before me today on the first court date on the application and I ordered that there be an immediate show cause hearing.  I took into account that the application, on its face, did not disclose coherently any jurisdictional error, that the RRT decision in issue is a very simple one and that the Minister had filed on 1 February 2006 a book of relevant documents. 

3. I gave the applicant leave to give oral evidence in relation to her application and she took up that opportunity.  In the light of her evidence and the court book I make the following findings.  The applicant was invited to a hearing before the RRT by letter dated 25 October 2005.  The letter was sent to the applicant at her address nominated in her review application.  The applicant cannot recall whether she received the letter.  She had made an arrangement for a friend living at the nominated address to give her any mail received and this was done.  She cannot recall whether the invitation letter was among that mail.  She made no response to the hearing invitation.  She made no contact with the RRT between the date on the letter of invitation and the nominated hearing date.  She did not attend the hearing.  She made no contact with the RRT after the hearing date.  The RRT attempted to contact the applicant by telephone but was unsuccessful.  The applicant has no concern about the procedure followed by the RRT.

4. I conclude from these facts that no argument of procedural unfairness could be mounted.  Neither could there be any arguable challenge to the entitlement of the RRT to proceed in the absence of the applicant.

5. The RRT decision is a very simple one.  It simply confirms what the applicant had already been told in the hearing invitation.  That is that there was insufficient material before the RRT to permit a favourable decision to be made.  I see no conceivable challenge that could be made to the decision.

6. I find that the judicial review application does not disclose an arguable case.  Neither could an arguable case be mounted.

7. I dismiss the application, pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

8. Costs should follow the event.  I will order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application fixed in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court scale of costs.  The prescribed amount in these circumstances is $1,000.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM

Associate: 

Date:  15 February 2006