SZJGB v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1759

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJGB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1759

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – dismissal of show cause application – no arguable case.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.424A

SZHFE v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 648

Applicant: SZJGB

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG2316 of 2006

Judgment of: Driver FM

Hearing date: 27 November 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 27 November 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms T Quinn
DLA Phillips Fox

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed, pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, including any reserved costs, fixed in the sum of $1,900.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2522 of 2006

SZJGB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. I have before me a show cause application relating to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The decision was handed down on 25 July 2006.  The show cause application asserts notification of the decision on 25 July 2006.  The application was filed on 21 August 2006.  I find that the application was filed within time.

2. The only ground of review advanced in the application is an asserted breach of s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”). That ground is advanced without any meaningful particulars. The Minister drew attention to that defect in her response on 30 August 2006. The applicant’s affidavit in support of his application filed on 21 August 2006 simply refers to his claims to be a refugee.

3. When this matter first came before me on 9 October 2006 I ordered a preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001 (Cth) (“the Federal Magistrates Court Rules”) today. I also made orders for the filing of additional material. The only additional material filed is the court book filed on behalf of the Minister on 16 October 2006.

4. The applicant asserted an inability to file additional material because he had not been able to contact his panel adviser.  I note, however, that Mr Ray Turner, who was appointed as the applicant’s panel adviser, advised the court on 13 November 2006 that he had provided advice to the applicant in this matter. 

5. The applicant was unable to expand upon the asserted jurisdictional error in his application. The Tribunal decision clearly turned upon the inability of the presiding member to satisfy himself that the applicant qualified for a protection visa on the basis of the limited and unpersuasive information given by the applicant, in particular at the hearing before the Tribunal. The inadequacy of that information was not information requiring disclosure pursuant to s.424A(1)[1]. 

   [1] SZHFE v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 648

6. The applicant was unable to point to any other information that should have been disclosed but was not. Neither is any breach of s.424A (or indeed any jurisdictional error) apparent to me. I conclude that the show cause application fails to disclose an arguable case of jurisdictional error.

7. I will therefore order that the application be dismissed pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

8. The application having been dismissed, costs should follow the event.  The Minister seeks an order for costs fixed in the sum of $1,900.  Scale costs in the present circumstances would be $2,500.  The Minister properly seeks a lesser amount.  The applicant is concerned about his capacity to pay, but that is not a reason for the Court to refrain from making a costs order.  I will order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application fixed in the sum of $1,900. 

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

Associate: 

Date:  15 December 2006