SZJOP v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 1694
•9 October 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZJOP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1694 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – whether Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision affected by jurisdictional error – whether the Refugee Review Tribunal gave the applicant sufficient opportunity to explain her claims. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.474 |
| Applicant: | SZJOP |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File number: | SYG 3107 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Emmett FM |
| Hearing date: | 9 October 2007 |
| Date of last submission: | 9 October 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 9 October 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant appearing on her own behalf |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms V. McWilliam |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms M. Mafessanti, Clayton Utz |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3107 of 2006
| SZJOP |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Applicant is a citizen of Papua New Guinea and claims to fear serious harm by a former Minister of the Papua New Guinea government because she refused to marry him. She also claims that this person, Mr W, raped her in 2004 and has threatened her with death.
On 18 May 2006, a delegate of the First Respondent refused the Applicant’s application for a protection visa on the basis that the Applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.
On 6 June 2006, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision by the Tribunal. The Applicant provided no further material in support of the review application. On 13 September 2006, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant a protection visa.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance that the Applicant would suffer serious harm at the hands of Mr W if she were to return to live in Papua New Guinea. Further, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any harm suffered by the Applicant in the past at the hands of Mr W was for a Convention reason. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that Mr W was a former Minister of the government of Papua New Guinea, although it accepted that he may have represented himself as such to the Applicant.
On 25 October 2006, the Applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The Applicant identified the grounds of her application as follows:
“1. I was not given enoughe (sic) opportunity to explain the threat on my life.
2. Present conditions in my country has gone bad to worse.
3. Please refer my case to RRT so that I can have a fair decision.”
The Applicant was unrepresented before this Court. The Applicant had attended a first court date before me on 6 December 2006. On that occasion the Applicant was directed to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review relied upon, together with any evidence by way of affidavit, including any transcript of the Tribunal hearing, by 28 February 2007. No document has been filed with this Court by or on behalf of the Applicant since that date.
The grounds referred to by the Applicant in her application were read to her and she was invited to make submissions in support of any of the grounds or in support of her application generally. The Applicant had no submission to make in support of her application. The Applicant confirmed that she had received and read the First Respondent’s submissions.
Ground 1 of the Applicant’s application alleges that she was not given enough opportunity at the Tribunal hearing to explain the threat to her life.
However, the Tribunal decision notes that the Applicant was asked what she feared would happen if she returned to Papua New Guinea and noted the Applicant’s response. The Tribunal also asked the Applicant what she feared from Mr W and noted her response. The Tribunal also asked the Applicant if she had any other reason to fear harm in Papua New Guinea and noted her response. At the completion of the Applicant’s evidence the Tribunal asked whether there was anything else she wished to add and noted her response.
The Tribunal also noted in some detail exchanges it had with the Applicant about concerns it had with her claims. The Tribunal noted that it summarised the Applicant’s claims and put to her it did not appear that the harm she feared in Papua New Guinea was for a Convention reason. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had no comment.
The Applicant has not provided to this Court a copy of the transcript of the Tribunal hearing to support any contention by her that the Tribunal’s record of the hearing was inaccurate or incorrect in any respect. Whilst the Applicant did not articulate in terms an application for an adjournment to provide such evidence, she did say that she had sought documents from her family but had not received anything from them. However, she did not identify the nature of those documents. To the extent it could be taken that the Applicant was applying for an adjournment of today’s hearing, having regard to the fact that the Applicant has had more than 11 months to file and serve any evidence, such application was refused.
A fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision makes it clear that the Applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to explain any threat on her life, and her claims generally. Having regard to the record of hearing reflected by the Tribunal in its decision, ground 1 is not made out.
Ground 2 alleges that present conditions in Papua New Guinea have deteriorated. The allegation is not supported by evidence and does not identify any error in the Tribunal’s decision going to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, ground 2 is rejected.
Ground 3 does not disclose any error capable of review by this Court and simply requests that the Applicant’s case be returned to the Tribunal so she could “have a fair decision.”
The findings and conclusions made by the Tribunal were open to it on the material and evidence before it. There is no error identified by the Applicant going to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and none is apparent on the face of the Tribunal’s decision.
The Tribunal’s decision is a privative clause decision and accordingly, pursuant to s.474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere.
The proceeding commenced by way of application filed on 25 October 2006, is dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM
Associate: S. Kwong
Date: 9 October 2007
0
0
1