SZOHJ v Minister for Immigration

[2010] FMCA 564

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZOHJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2010] FMCA 564

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – no grounds made out.

Migration Act 1958, s.422B

SZFDE v Minister for Immigration [2007] HCA 35

Applicant: SZOHJ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 705 of 2010

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 21 July 2010

Date of Last Submission: 21 July 2010

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 21 July 2010

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 $3,700.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 705 of 2010

SZOHJ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 15 February 2009 and applied to the Department of Immigration & Citizenship for a protection (Class XA) visa on 25 March 2009.  On 5 June 2009 the delegate refused to grant a protection visa and on 3 July the applicant applied for a review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal following which he was provided with an opportunity to submit further information.  On 8 March 2010 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa and handed the decision down on the same day.

2. The applicant’s claim to be a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations arose out of his political views as an ethnic Tamil from the state of Tamil Nadu.  The applicant claimed in his application [CB 27] to be a member of the DMK which he said was a prominent political party upholding the interests of the state of Tamil Nadu.  He said he was an office bearer and a member of the party’s Tiruvarur District Committee.  The applicant claimed that on 28 December 2007 he was attacked by political opponents and that he was hospitalised for two weeks after that attack.  He feared that he would be killed if he ever went home.  He says that he made several reports to the police but to no avail.  The applicant said that the attack occurred because he was walking with a person who was involved in the Babri Mosque incident.

3. The Tribunal questioned the applicant upon his submissions.  It noted that the Babri Mosque incident had occurred on 6 December 1992 and queried why the applicant would be attacked as a result of walking with a person involved in that incident (which had taken place in northern India) so many years afterwards.  The applicant then told the Tribunal that the person was a member of the BJP.

4. The applicant provided the Tribunal with copies of letters that he had written to the police about this incident [CB 72].  The Tribunal noted that that letter, if it…