SZLQU v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 226
•19 February 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLQU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 226 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – Indian applicant claiming caste discrimination – did not attend Tribunal hearing – 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.425, 426A(1) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | SZLQU |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3585 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 February 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 February 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms A Crittenden |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
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 $1,900.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3585 of 2007
| SZLQU |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
The applicant came to Australia in April 2007, and on 17 May 2007 applied for a protection visa. His application said only: “I have fear of my life. I will submit my reasons shortly”, to explain why he did not wish to return to India.
No details were forwarded to the Department of Immigration before the delegate made a decision on 4 June 2007, refusing the application. However, the Department later received a signed statement, giving a history in which the applicant claimed that he had received discrimination while living in his village from members of the Jat and other high class people, as a result of his being a member and leader of the Gujjar (low caste) people. The applicant claimed to have been discriminated against in his employment, to have been assaulted in the course of a religious festival, and to have received no protection from the police, but indeed to have been beaten up by them. Following an incident between the applicant’s bullock cart and a tractor belonging to the Jats, the applicant had to leave his village, and had nobody to protect him, so he came to Australia.
No support for these claims was provided to the Department nor subsequently to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision in a decision handed down on 2 October 2007.
Before making its decision the Tribunal sent to the applicant a letter dated 19 July 2007, inviting him to a hearing on 5 September 2007. The letter informed the applicant that the Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision on the information given to the Department, and that he should contact the Tribunal immediately if there was a difficulty with the hearing proceeding on the appointed date. The letter advised the applicant that the Tribunal might make a decision without further notice if he did not appear.
However, the applicant did not attend the hearing, and made no contact with the Tribunal.
In its statement of reasons, the Tribunal noted the claims made by the applicant. It said that the applicant had not submitted the necessary details to satisfy it as to the veracity of his claims, and that it had not had the opportunity to discuss with him relevant country information. It said that it was “not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant has a well‑founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Convention”.
I have considered the Tribunal’s procedures and reasoning, and am unable to identify any arguable jurisdictional error. In my opinion, the procedures followed by the Tribunal in relation to the appointment of a hearing clearly complied with the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), and the Tribunal was empowered to proceed as it did under s.426A(1).
The applicant’s application to the Court seeks orders which would set aside the Tribunal’s decision and send the matter back to the Tribunal. It has been listed today to consider whether it raises an arguable case for the making of these orders. The applicant has been given an opportunity to file an amended application and evidence, after receiving a bundle of relevant documents and a referral for free legal advice. However, he has not filed any documents additional to his original application and affidavit.
The grounds in the application are:
1.The Refugee Review Tribunal failed to act that the applicant satisfy the definition of “refugee” as defined Article 1(A)(2) of the Convention.
2.The Tribunal failed to analyse properly “future harm” the applicant [may] face [if] he returns to India.
I cannot see any substance or arguable merit in these grounds. In my opinion, the reasoning followed by the Tribunal discloses no arguable jurisdictional error.
The applicant attended today, and had no submissions to make to me in relation to his non‑attendance at the hearing. He said only that he was “not well”, and he conceded that he had not tried to contact the Tribunal. He has not presented any evidence providing arguable substance to any contention of procedural error on the part of the Tribunal, in particular as to its obligations under s.425 of the Migration Act.
In my opinion, the application does not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed, and it is appropriate to dismiss it under r.44.12(1)(a).
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Lilian Khaw
Date: 29 February 2008
0
0
0