SZLTP v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLTP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 889

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where Tribunal indicated to applicant concerns that applicant’s parents were seeking to have their own unsuccessful claims reconsidered – whether Tribunal did not take into account applicant’s identity – whether applicant denied procedural fairness – whether applicant should have been provided with country information – impermissible merits review.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A, 422B

SZDFO v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1192
NARE v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 554
NAST v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 86

Applicant: SZLTP

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3842 of 2007

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 12 June 2008

Date of Last Submission: 12 June 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 June 2008

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Litigation guardian of the applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,300.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3842 of 2007

SZLTP

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the two-year old son of a former visa applicant and his wife from Bangladesh.  The son was born in Australia where his father has been since 1995.  The father has consented to be the litigation guardian of the son. 

2. The application for a protection visa was filed with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 9 July 2007.  On 6 August 2007 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa.  On 4 September 2007 the applicant applied for a review of the delegate's decision and the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 2 October 2007 advising him that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing.

3. On the same day the Tribunal wrote a letter, pursuant to the provisions of s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), inviting the applicant to comment on certain information that the Tribunal considered would, subject to any comments he might make, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision that was under review. The information which was referred to in that letter dealt with the decisions that had been made by the Tribunal and affirmed by the courts in applications of the parents and the applicant's sister. It also noted that at [CB97]:

   "The statement you submitted with your primary application and the accompanying unsigned document in the form of a Statutory Declaration refer in detail to what you claim to be your father's situation, past and present, but say little about your own situation … 

   This information is relevant to the review because it may be the reason or part of…