SZNTE v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNTE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 1256

MIGRATION – Persecution – review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – visa – protection visa – refusal – no jurisdictional error demonstrated by the fact that the Tribunal used evidence from one review in determining another review – s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 applies to such information – applicant before Tribunal has no general right to call, hear or cross-examine persons whose evidence may be used by the Tribunal – no s.424A(1) obligations attach to information supplied in response to a s.424A notice – the Tribunal has no obligation to send a second s.424A notice in the event that an applicant’s response to a s.424A notice is inadequate or incomplete.

Migration Act 1958, ss.420, 422B, 424, 424A, 425, 474

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Kumar (2009) 238 CLR 448
SZIAQ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 654
MZXGB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 392
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Katisat [2005] FCA 1908

Applicant: SZNTE

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1689 of 2009

Judgment of: Cameron FM

Hearing date: 30 October 2009

Date of Last Submission: 23 November 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 23 December 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1689 of 2009

SZNTE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant is a citizen of China. She alleges that while in China her husband was the priest for an “underground family church” and that their home was the main place of worship. As the church services increased, she and her family became known and targeted by the authorities.

2. The applicant claims to fear persecution in China because of her and her family’s past involvement in, and ongoing commitment to, an underground Christian church.

3. After her arrival in Australia on 11 December 2007, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa. This was refused by the Minister’s delegate on 28 April 2009. The applicant then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for a review of that departmental decision. The applicant was unsuccessful before the Tribunal and has applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.

4. In these judicial review proceedings the Court cannot rehear the applicant’s application for a visa. Its task is to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error as that is the only basis upon which it can be set aside: s.474 Migration Act1958 (“Act”); Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

5. For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.

Background facts