SZLDS v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLDS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 123

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where applicant did not appear at Tribunal hearing – where Tribunal unable to reach state of satisfaction.

NAST v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 86

Applicant: SZLDS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 2427 of 2007

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 30 January 2008

Date of last submission: 30 January 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 30 January 2008

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $3,400.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2427 of 2007

SZLDS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Indonesia who arrived in Australia on 28 October 2006.  On 22 November 2006 he applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a protection (class XA) visa.  On 14 February 2007 a delegate of the Minister declined to grant a protection visa and the applicant sought review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal by filing an application on 14 March 2007. 

2. On 12 April 2007 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at the PO Box address which he had given as his address for correspondence [CB 51], advising him that the Tribunal would hold a hearing into his claims on 4 June 2007, and invited him to appear and give oral evidence and present arguments.  On 30 April 2007 the applicant responded to that hearing invitation [CB 58] advising that he would attend and that he required an Indonesian interpreter.  On 17 May 2007 the Tribunal wrote again to the applicant at the PO Box address informing him that unfortunately the Tribunal could not conduct the hearing on the day originally planned, but would conduct the hearing on 7 June 2007.  The applicant did not respond to that letter and did not appear at the hearing. On 12 June 2007 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant the protection visa and handed down that decision on 5 July 2007. 

3. The grounds upon which the applicant claimed that he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations were that he was a Balinese Hindu who was required to leave his home country because he feared for his safety.  He had worked for his uncle who was an electrician.  In June 2006 his uncle had been asked to quote for a job.  He refused to do the job because he believed that the people who wished him to work for them were part of the Nurdin terrorist group.  The applicant claimed that after the uncle and he had refused to undertake the work, the group were angry and made problems for them.  He said that both he and his uncle made arrangements…