SZMNN v Minister for Immigration

[2008] FMCA 1359

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMNN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 1359

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – interlocutory dismissal of show cause application – no arguable case.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: SZMNN

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1868 of 2008

Judgment of: Driver FM

Hearing date: 29 September 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 29 September 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms J Dinihan
Clayton Utz

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed, pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $1,600.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1868 of 2008

SZMNN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The decision was handed down on 24 June 2008.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant is from Indonesia and arrived in this country on 3 December 2007.  She applied to the Minister's Department for a protection visa on 14 January 2008.  That application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 6 March 2008. On 27 March 2008 the applicant for a review of the delegate's decision to the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision on the papers and invited the applicant to a hearing. She attended and was questioned by the Tribunal.  The applicant told the Tribunal that she was afraid to return to Indonesia because of a debt she had incurred.  The Tribunal did not find the applicant's claims plausible.  The Tribunal further found that even if the applicant faced harm in Indonesia because of her inability to repay a debt, there was no Convention nexus.

3. These proceedings began with a show cause application filed on 21 July 2008.  The applicant continues to rely upon that application.  It contains three grounds, none of which are particularised.  The application asserts that the Tribunal misunderstood her claim, that it overlooked important factors and failed to relate her claim to Convention reasons.  The application was supported by a short affidavit, which I received.  I also received the court book filed on 4 September 2008. 

4. There is no substance to any of the grounds in the application to the Court.  It is apparent, from the record of the Tribunal decision, that the Tribunal did understand the applicant's claims and considered them.  The Tribunal did not accept the factual claims made by the applicant and, accordingly, there was no need to consider a Convention nexus.

5. However, the Tribunal did consider what the position would be if it were wrong in rejecting the applicant's factual claims.  The Tribunal considered that even if the applicant's claims were true, there would be no Convention nexus.  I see no error in the Tribunal's approach.  The Tribunal also appears to have met its obligations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relation to its decision. I see no arguable case of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision.

6. I will order that the application be dismissed, pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

7. The application having been dismissed, costs should follow the event.  The Minister seeks an order for costs fixed in the sum of $1600.  The applicant did not wish to be heard on costs.  I will order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $1,600.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM

Associate: 

Date:  2 October 2008