SZLAS v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLAS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 1928

MIGRATION – Whether a notice under s.425A must be in a particular form – whether the applicant was notified “of the effect of” s.426(2) – whether references to cases is “information” within s.424A – meaning of the phrase “of the effect of”.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A, 4254, 426, 474

SZCQR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 724
SZICU v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1086
Uddin v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 841
SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162
SZASX v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 680
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609

Applicant: SZLAS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 2092 of 2007

Judgment of: Turner FM

Hearing date: 19 October 2007

Date of last submission: 19 October 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 6 December 2007

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr M. Jones

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S. Lloyd

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms H. Blackman of Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The application and amended application are dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2092 of 2007

SZLAS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an order to show cause why a remedy should not be granted in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) signed on 31 May 2007, which affirmed the decision of the delegate for the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Background

1. On 31 January 2007 the applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for a protection visa. In this application he claimed to fear persecution on his return to China on account of his new-found Christianity, and the fact that during his time in Australia he has been tried and convicted for conspiracy to kidnap. The applicant claimed to fear retribution from both the authorities in China and his co-conspirator (Court Book “CB 29-31).

2. The application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 27 February 2007 (CB 58-59) and by the Tribunal on review on 31 May 2007 (CB 132-163).

3. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to an application for judicial review filed on 5 July 2007, and an amended application filed on 4 October 2007.

Issues for determination

1. The main issues before the Court are as follows:

   ·Whether a valid notice was given under s.425A;

   ·Whether a notice under s.425A must exactly replicate the language of s.426(2);

   ·Whether referral to other cases was “information” within s.424A.

The application

1. In his application, the applicant set out the following grounds:

   (1)Protection visa (seeking asylum).

   (2)My life is in danger if I go back to China.

2. In his…