SZNUB v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNUB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 1219

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where applicant’s grounds for suggesting Tribunal made a jurisdictional error are confused and not particularised.

Migration Act 1958, ss.424A, 425

Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR 59
M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1212
SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration [2006] HCA 63
Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21
VWST v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCAFC 286
NARE v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 554

Applicant: SZNUB

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1795 of 2009

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 25 November 2009

Date of Last Submission: 25 November 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 25 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In Person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1795 of 2009

SZNUB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of China. She arrived in Australia on 25 October 2006 accompanying her son and daughter under a (Subclass 580) student guardian visa. On 18 December 2008 the applicant applied for a protection (Class XA) visa. On 19 March 2009, following an interview, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa. On 14 April 2009 the applicant applied for review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend before it, which she did, together with some witnesses. Following the hearing the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”).  The applicant responded to that letter.  On 8 July 2009 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant the protection visa and handed that decision down on the same day.

2. The convention ground upon which the applicant claimed to be a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations was that of religion.  The applicant claimed that in about 2005 she became interested in the Christian religion and became involved with a small group of people in a house church.  In about February 2005 they started having meetings in her house.  In July 2005 a prayer meeting was interrupted by the PSB.  The applicant and the other members of her group were arrested and placed in detention.  The applicant said that she remained in detention longer than the others, and was there approximately a week.  Eventually she obtained her release.  She remained of interest to the PSB for some time thereafter.  When she applied for a passport for the purposes of accompanying her children to Australia for education she was unsuccessful.  Later, she managed to obtain a passport and a visa with the assistance of an agent.…