SZLMI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 1232

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLMI v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1232

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 424A, 430

SZLMI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 742 OF 2008

MARSHALL J
13 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 742 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLMI
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 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 $1,400.

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 742 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLMI
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	13 AUGUST 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

2. The appellant is a citizen of India. He claimed to fear persecution if returned to India in the reasonably foreseeable future by reason of his religion and political opinion.

3. The claim based on religion related to the appellant’s fear of being harmed by a Muslim family when he, as a Hindu, had courted their daughter. The Tribunal noted that the appellant raised no argument that “religion” was the essential and significant factor in the alleged harm. The appellant also raised vague claims suggesting that differing party politics meant he could not be protected from the woman’s family as they had links to the ruling party. The Tribunal did not accept that the appellant closed his hardware shop because of harassment, as he had asserted. The Tribunal considered that if the appellant was persecuted by the woman’s family, such persecution occurred a long time ago and was not for a Convention related reason.

4. Before the Court below the appellant raised the question of breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Tribunal’s alleged failure to address the question of internal relocation without persecution. The Federal Magistrate noted that the Tribunal made no findings about relocation and did not need to do so. No s 424A issue arose because the Tribunal relied on the appellant’s own evidence before it.

5. In his notice of appeal the appellant referred to the Tribunal’s failure to exercise its jurisdiction and its excess of jurisdiction without specifying the instances where that had occurred. In his written submissions filed in the appeal the appellant complained that:

   ·the Tribunal had not given him the benefit of the doubt concerning the plausibility of his claims;

   ·the Tribunal failed to record its decision in accordance with s 430 of the Act;

   ·the Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness by finding him not to be credible and without giving him an opportunity to be heard on its conclusions;

   ·the Tribunal failed to investigate his claim;

   ·the Tribunal was actually biased;

   ·the Tribunal failed to apply the reasonable chance test.

6. In every respect the appellant was unable to detail or particularise any of the above arguments. He failed to do so this afternoon in his oral submissions. The appeal is without merit. There is no jurisdictional error contained in the reasons for decision of the Tribunal. It found that the appellant’s fears of persecution did not relate to religion or politics. It was entitled to do so on the facts before it.

7. The Federal Magistrate committed no appealable error in upholding the Tribunal’s decision. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:        13 August 2008

The Appellant appeared for himself.
Counsel for the Respondents:	Ms B Anniwell for Australian Government Solicitor.

Date of Hearing:	13 August 2008
Date of Judgment:	13 August 2008