SZJFY v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 1796
•4 December 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZJFY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 1796 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – interlocutory dismissal of show cause application – no arguable case. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2), 65, 424A |
| SAAP v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCA 24 |
| Applicant: | SZJFY |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG2304 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 December 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 4 December 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
The Applicant appeared in person
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms J Pownall Australian Government Solicitor |
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
The application is dismissed, pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of, including any reserved costs, in the sum of $1,750.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG2304 of 2006
| SZJFY |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
This is an application to show cause in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) handed down on 20 July 2006 affirming a decision of the delegate of the first respondent to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The applicant is a citizen of China who claims that she left that country because she feared that the authorities would not allow her to conduct the business that she wishes to conduct and previously did conduct, namely, a karaoke business; this would have the effect of depriving her of means of support. The applicant also made claims that she was a Buddhist and had practised Falun Gong and that she would be discriminated against if she returned to China on religious grounds.
The Tribunal concluded that it was unable to accept the applicant’s claims and because of the fact that she was unable to provide any corroborative evidence of them determined that it was not satisfied as required by s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”) that she fulfilled the criteria set out in s.36(2).
The applicant argues that the Tribunal fell into a jurisdictional error by not complying with s.424A of the Act as discussed by the High Court in SAAP v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCA 24. But she has provided no particulars of the information which the Tribunal allegedly used and did not provide her with an opportunity to rebut. In fact the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant its concern about her lack of corroborative evidence and gave her an opportunity to provide such. Pointing out to an applicant that he or she may not have persuaded the Tribunal to reach the state of satisfaction required is not to my mind “information” for the purposes of s.424A. So it would not be necessary for the Tribunal to provide the applicant with a notice in writing.
The applicant also says that the Tribunal did not comply with the requirements of the Act. But once again she does not particularise the alleged failure. It seems to me from what I have heard from her this morning that the applicant is really seeking impermissible merits review of this decision. In those circumstances I do not believe it is appropriate to make an order that the respondent show cause and I therefore dismiss the substantive application. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $1,750.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date: 13 December 2006
0
1
1