SZOSF v Minister for Immigration

[2011] FMCA 646

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZOSF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2011] FMCA 646

MIGRATION – Practice & Procedure – application for adjournment – challenge to competency of interpreter retained by the Court – adequacy of evidence of lack of competence.

Applicant: SZOSF

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2305 of 2010

Judgment of: Cameron FM

Hearing date: 15 March 2011

Date of Last Submission: 15 March 2011

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 15 March 2011

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr B.D Kaplan

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDER

1. The applicant’s application for an adjournment be refused.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2305 of 2010

SZOSF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The matter is before the Court today for the resumed hearing of the applicant’s application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”), which affirmed the decision of a ministerial delegate to refuse him a protection visa. The second hearing day has been made necessary because, on the last occasion, the applicant submitted for the first time that there had been deficiencies in the translation of his evidence at the third Tribunal hearing held in the course of the review of his visa application. Amongst the orders made on the last occasion in this Court was the following:

   4.The applicant file any affidavits annexing or exhibiting the transcript of any hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal. The transcript is to be full and complete and filed, together with the affidavit, by 1 March 2011.

2. The applicant has filed no such affidavit or indeed any evidence supporting his allegation that the interpreter services provided to him at the third Tribunal hearing were deficient in the way he alleges. Attached to written submissions which the applicant filed on 1 March 2011 is a document called “Attachment 2” in which the applicant sets out what he says were inadequacies in the interpreter services.  However, the applicant has not brought to Court today the CDs of the Tribunal hearing which could be used to test the accuracy of his allegations.

3. The applicant’s failure to address the evidentiary requirements of the allegations which he made on the last occasion became significant at the outset of today’s hearing because it appears that the interpreter whom the Court has retained to assist the applicant today is the same interpreter who assisted the applicant at the third Tribunal hearing and in respect of whom the applicant makes the allegations of poor translation services. However, given that there is actually no evidence before the Court at the moment that the translation services were indeed inadequate, there is no basis to accede to the applicant’s request today that the Court adjourn in order that a further interpreter may be located. If the applicant had brought evidence to Court in support of his allegation that the interpreter services provided at the third Tribunal hearing were inadequate, then there might have been a factual basis for the Court acceding to his request today. However, there is no such factual basis.

4. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has had several weeks to put on evidence touching on the allegation which has brought the matter back for a second day, in the absence of any substantive basis to doubt the skill of the interpreter retained by the Court, I am not willing to adjourn the matter simply because the applicant makes what are at the moment unsubstantiated allegations against him. 

Conclusion

1. The application for an adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Cameron FM

Date:  23 August 2011