SZLOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 1197

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLOZ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1197

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91R(1)

SZLOZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 802 OF 2008

MARSHALL J

11 AUGUST 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 802 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLOZ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 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 802 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLOZ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	11 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 Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first 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. The appellant borrowed 700,000 rupees to pay an agent to allow him to travel to Australia, supposedly as part of the Rajasthan Indoor Cricket Team. The appellant is not a cricketer. He claims that if returned to India he will be tortured by those from whom he borrowed money to come to Australia. The appellant also claims to be a member of a particular social group consisting of Rajasthani farmers. He claims not to have civil or political freedom in India.

3. The Tribunal considered that the appellant’s claim to fear his creditors was not related to any Refugees Convention ground and did not come within the concept of persecution under s 91R(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal also found no connection between the social group of farmers from Rajasthan and the claimed persecution consisting of alleged loss of civil and political freedom.

4. Before the Court below the appellant claimed that the Tribunal had failed to properly apply the relevant law and procedure and denied the appellant natural justice. His Honour did not find any jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal.

5. In the appeal to this Court the appellant provided written submissions which he adopted when appearing for himself. Those submissions refer variously to failure to follow proper procedure, ignoring of relevant evidence, actual bias, jurisdictional error, breach of procedural fairness and failure to consider country information, without identifying any specific material in support of any of these arguments. In fact, when appearing this afternoon the appellant conceded that the Federal Magistrate had not made a mistake.

6. The appeal is without substance. No appealable error has been identified in the reasons of the Court below. No jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s reasons for decision has been established. The appeal is dismissed, with costs fixed at $1,400.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:        11 August 2008

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

Date of Hearing:	11 August 2008
Date of Judgment:	11 August 2008