SZLJJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 1244

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLJJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1244

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 424A

SZLJJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 677 OF 2008

MARSHALL J
14 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 677 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLJJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 AUGUST 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $1400.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 677 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLJJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	14 AUGUST 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant appeals from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Refugee Review Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

2. The appellant claimed to fear persecution if returned to India on account of his political opinion as a member of the Congress Party who had been tortured by members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal.

3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claim that he was involved with the

   
   

   Congress Party. It did not accept his evidence that he had been persecuted by members of other parties. Based on his lack of credibility, the Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claim to have a well founded fear of persecution if returned to India in the reasonably foreseeable future.

4. The Federal Magistrate rejected the following alleged grounds of review raised below:

   ·a failure in the Tribunal to take into account relevant considerations;

   ·a failure in the Tribunal to investigate claims;

   ·the Tribunal’s use of country information;

   ·the Tribunal’s ignoring of relevant material;

   ·the Tribunal’s application of the wrong tests.

5. The Court below observed that these grounds were unparticularised and repetitive in nature. It emphasised that the Tribunal disbelieved the appellant’s essential claims.

6. The Federal Magistrate also rejected a claim that the Tribunal did not comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). It rejected this ground because the Tribunal put the relevant information to the appellant at the hearing. The Court below also rejected a submission that the Tribunal did not apply “the refugee test” properly.

7. The appellant relied on written submissions filed in the appeal. He contended that the Tribunal did not consider whether a liberal Muslim such as the appellant was at risk from radical Hindus. The appellant made no claim to be a liberal Muslim but said that his political opponents would regard him as a fundamentalist. It is also relevant to observe that the Tribunal noted the appellant, “expressly said at the hearing…that he had not had problems directly because of his religion.”

8. The appellant also claimed that the Tribunal erred in failing to consider his claims that he feared persecution on the basis of membership of the Congress Party “and being minority in India”. The claim based on the Congress Party was considered and rejected. It is unclear what “being minority in India” is referable to. In any event the Tribunal rejected his evidence concerning his alleged fear of persecution on political grounds and was entitled to do so in accordance with the responses given to the Tribunal by the appellant in the hearing.

9. Other grounds relied on in the submission were general and unsubstantiated. They alleged actual bias and failure to apply the real chance test for the grant of a protection visa. These grounds have no merit.

10. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:        14 August 2008

The Appellant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ms B Anniwell appeared for Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:	14 August 2008
Date of Judgment:	14 August 2008