SZLPR v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 95
•4 February 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLPR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 95 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming persecution in China based upon her asserted practise of Falun Gong – applicant not believed – interlocutory dismissal of show cause application – no arguable case of jurisdictional error. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.424A |
| Applicant: | SZLPR |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3472 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 February 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 4 February 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
The Applicant appeared in person
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms A Crittenden Clayton Utz |
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
The application is dismissed, pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the amount of $2,000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3472 of 2007
| SZLPR |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The decision was handed down on 11 October 2007.
The applicant is from China and had made claims of persecution based upon her practice of Falun Gong. She arrived in Australia on 4 April 2007 and applied for a protection visa on 11 May 2007. That application was refused by a delegate on 8 June 2007. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 13 July 2007. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 27 July 2007, inviting her to a hearing. The applicant attended and gave evidence. The Tribunal did not believe the applicant. In making its decision, the Tribunal referred to country information and the applicant's claims and evidence. The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was vague, inconsistent and lacking in detail. The Tribunal found that the applicant was untruthful in claiming Falun Gong belief in an attempt to characterise herself as a person to whom Australia has protection obligations when she is not such a person. Because the Tribunal found that the applicant's claims had been fabricated, the Tribunal found that she did not have a well‑founded fear of persecution in China based upon those claims.
The applicant applied to this Court for review of the Tribunal's decision on 8 November 2007. She now relies upon an amended application filed on 31 December 2007. She filed an affidavit with her original application on 8 November 2007, which I accepted as a submission. The affidavit asserts bias and a breach of s.424A of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”). Those grounds are repeated in the amended application. The grounds were expanded upon in a document attached to the amended application, which is in template form, with which the Court is now very familiar.
I received as evidence a court book filed on 30 November 2007. That is the only evidence I have before me. I invited oral submissions from the applicant this morning. In relation to bias, she is obviously dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision and considers that she should have been believed. There is, however, no evidence to support the allegation of bias. The applicant accused the Tribunal of basing its decision upon assumptions but the Tribunal's decision (court book, page 75) is a reasoned one.
There appeared to be some confusion in the applicant's mind in relation to her second ground of review. She alleged that she was not notified in writing of the reasons for the Tribunal's decision. She plainly had a copy of the Tribunal's reasons when she applied to the Court because a copy is annexed to her affidavit. I understood, however, the applicant to be referring to her asserted breach by the Tribunal of s.424A of the Migration Act. It is apparent from the Tribunal's reasons that the Tribunal relied upon country information about China and the Falun Gong movement, as well as the information provided to the Tribunal by the applicant herself. None of that information was required to be disclosed to the applicant, pursuant to s.424A. There is no substance to the asserted breach of that section.
From my own reading of the available material, it is not apparent to me that there is any jurisdictional error in relation to the Tribunal decision.
The decision is, therefore, a privative clause decision and the application must be dismissed. I so order.
The application having been dismissed, costs should follow the event. The Minister seeks costs fixed in the sum of $2,000. Scale costs in this instance would be $2,500. The applicant claims impecuniosity, but that is not a reason for the Court to refrain from making a costs order. I will order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, which I fix in the sum of $2000.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Associate:
Date: 6 February 2008
0
0
2