SZLKO v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 2145
•18 December 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLKO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 2145 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – Indian claiming persecution for Muslim religion – claims disbelieved by Tribunal – no arguable case – application dismissed at show‑cause hearing. |
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A(1), 424A(3)(a), 424A(3)(b)
| Applicant: | SZLKO |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3036 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 18 December 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 18 December 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms B Anniwell |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed under Rule 44.12(1)(a) on the ground that it does not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed.
The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,500.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3036 of 2007
| SZLKO |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
The applicant arrived in Australia in April 2007 with a group of players and officials from the Rajasthan Indoor Cricket Federation, who were invited to come to Australia by the Australian International Sports Academy to play cricket matches. Shortly before their visas were due to expire, a migration agent lodged numerous applications for protection visas, including one on behalf of this applicant. Specific details of the applicant’s claims to fear persecution in India were not set out, but the agent said in relation to all his clients: “they suffer from poverty & starvation & all these happen as a result of their particular social group ‘farmers from Rajasthan’”.
A delegate refused the application on 22 May 2007. On appeal, the applicant attended a hearing held by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 1 August 2007, and presented a two‑page written statement setting out his own claims to have been persecuted.
He claimed that his father owned a 100 acre property, and was the president of the Congress I Party in his village. His family belonged to the minority Muslim population. In 2004 some Hindus erected a temple and appropriated 10 acres of their land, and then attacked the applicant’s family, injuring his father and killing his uncle. Subsequently a court case was commenced against the people responsible, which “has been processed”.
The applicant also claimed that in February 2005 the people behind the RSS set fire to his family’s house, and his cousin was killed. He went to Bombay (Mumbai) to work, but there was fighting between the Hindus and Muslims “due to Babri Mosque”, and he returned to his village. He there was again threatened, because he refused to marry the daughter of the Hindu leader of the village and to be converted to the Hindu religion. The applicant’s statement said: “after that I was trying to hide myself”, and he arranged to come to Australia.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about these claims, and indicated in its statement of reasons that it found the applicant to be “an unimpressive witness”. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence about his travel arrangements “difficult to believe”, and did not accept that his father was the president of the Congress I Party in his district, due to the applicant’s inability to tell the Tribunal anything about his father’s political activities.
The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s claims regarding a conflict between his family and people from the Shiv Sena, and specifically the claims concerning the temple, the attacks, and the court case. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence concerning the court case to have been “confused and contradictory”.
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had worked for a period in Mumbai, but did not accept that he left because there was fighting between Hindus and Muslims. It noted that rioting following the destruction of the Babri Mosque had occurred in 1992, and that the relationship between the communities in Mumbai had improved since then. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s claims to fear harm for refusing to convert to Hinduism and marry a Hindu girl.
Generally, the Tribunal referred to country information concerning the generally amicable relations between religious groups in India, and did not accept that there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for reason of his religion as a Muslim, for reason of his membership of the particular social group constituted by his family, or for reasons of his real or imputed political opinions, if he returned to India now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. It did not accept that there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for reason of his membership of a particular social group of “farmers from Rajasthan”, and gave other general reasons for not being satisfied that he had a well‑founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason.
The applicant now asks the Court to set aside the Tribunal’s decision, and to order it to reconsider his refugee claims. His application has been listed today to consider whether it raises an arguable case for the relief claimed. The applicant has been given an opportunity to amend the grounds of his application and to file further evidence, after receiving a bundle of relevant documents and a referral for free legal advice.
He has filed an amended application. This has as its grounds:
Information adverse to me was not given in writing by the R.R.T. to response.
1.Some of my central claims were not assessed.
2.The R.R.T. did not follow proper procedures.
These grounds are little more particularised than the grounds in the original application which were:
1.RRT made legal error.
2.RRT breached procedures required by law.
In the absence of any particulars of any of the contentions made by the applicant, I am unable to give them meaningful application to the Tribunal’s decision.
I am unable myself to identify any information which was required to be put to the Tribunal under s.424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), since its decision appears to be based upon information given by the applicant to it or upon general information, both of which are excluded from obligations under s.424A(1) by reason of s.424A(3)(a) and (b).
I am unable to identify any “central claims” which arguably were not addressed by the Tribunal. Rather, it appears to me that the Tribunal has very thoroughly considered all the claims made by the applicant.
I am unable to identify any procedure required to be followed by the Tribunal which arguably it has not observed.
The applicant today had no submissions to make to me.
I am not satisfied that the application raises an arguable case for the relief claimed, and I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application under Rule 44.12(1)(a).
I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Lilian Khaw
Date: 14 January 2008
0
0
0