SZJJS v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJJS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 2070

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – obligation to make enquiries.

Migration Act 1958, s.424A

Kopalapillai v  Minister for Immigration  (1988) 86 FCR 547
ReMinister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407
Minister for Immigration v SGLB (2004) HCA 32

Applicant: SZJJS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 2665 of 2006

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 26 November 2007

Date of last submission: 26 November 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 26 November 2007

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Mitchell

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,500.00.

3. The First Respondent’s name be amended to Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2665.2006

SZJJS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in January 2006, claimed to be a Bihari resident in Bangladesh. On 2 February 2006 he applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa from the Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs. His application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 11 April 2006. The applicant applied for review of the decision of the delegate from the Refugee Review Tribunal. He was invited to a hearing on 21 June 2006, which he attended. The applicant provided certain information and documents to the Tribunal. On 22 June 2006 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant a letter pursuant to s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”) providing him with details of information that would, subject to any comments he might make, be the reason or part of the reason for deciding that he was not entitled to a protection visa. On 12 June 2006 the applicant responded to that letter. On 11 August 2006 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision under review and handed that decision down on 31 August 2006.

2. The grounds upon which the applicant claimed he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations arose out of his categorisation as a Bihari resident of Bangladesh. He claimed that he had lived in a refugee camp in Dhaka and that in early 1991 he had opened up a small shop selling cigarettes and allied products. He stated that he had been forced to pay commission or protection money to local influential "bandits" and on 25 July 1992 there had been a physical confrontation in which he and one of his friends, together with one of the ring leaders of the bandits, had been seriously injured requiring hospitalisation. He told how his shop had been burnt and that he had had to go into hiding thereafter. The applicant claimed that the persecution which he had suffered from the bandits was…