SZLPB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 1250

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLPB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1250

SZLPB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 801 OF 2008

MARSHALL J
15 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 801 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLPB
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 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 801 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLPB
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	15 AUGUST 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is a citizen of India from Rajasthan State. He entered Australia as part of an indoor cricket team on tour here. Not long after arriving in Australia he applied to the department of the first respondent Minister for a protection visa. A delegate of the Minister refused the application. The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed that decision. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The appellant now appeals from that judgment to this Court.

2. Before the Tribunal the appellant said that he was not a cricketer but that he had paid an agent 700,000 rupees (approx $18,000) to be included in the touring party. The appellant told the Tribunal that the agent had said he would be able to get permanent residency in Australia. He said he raised the money by selling his home. The appellant claimed to have problems with Muslims in his village. He referred to riots which had occurred in 1992 and to a group called United Liberation Front of Assam which he said had caused problems.

3. The appellant claimed to fear persecution from Muslims if returned to India on the ground of his Hindu religion. That is notwithstanding that 80% of Indians are Hindus and that it would not be difficult to relocate to an area in India which has a Hindu majority. The Tribunal considered that relocation to a majority Hindu area would be available if the appellant had problems in his home village. The Tribunal did not consider that the appellant faced a real chance of persecution on the ground of his Hindu religion if returned to India in the foreseeable future.

4. Before the Federal Magistrate the appellant raised the following grounds of review:

   ·improper application of the law;

   ·denial of natural justice;

   ·failure to follow due procedure.

5. No particulars were given of any of these grounds. The Federal Magistrate found no judicially reviewable error in the reasons of the Tribunal or in its approach to its task of reviewing the decision of the delegate.

6. On appeal the appellant relies on the same grounds raised before the Tribunal, again without particularising these grounds. In addition he raises the following extra grounds:

   ·actual bias

   ·failure to “take into consideration the verdict from the India country report”;

   ·failure to consider his claim.

7. The only matter vaguely particularised is the “verdict” from country information. The Tribunal put some material from country information from the US State Department to the appellant and DFAT cables about communal violence. I do not understand the relevance of the “verdict” and the appellant did not assist me in that regard this morning, choosing to rely entirely on his written submissions.

8. I have carefully considered the reasons for decision of the Tribunal and the reasons for judgment of the Court below. The former is free of judicially reviewable error and the latter is free of appealable error. The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:       15 August 2008

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

Date of Hearing:	15 August 2008
Date of Judgment:	15 August 2008