SZOZQ v Minister for Immigration

[2011] FMCA 409

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZOZQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2011] FMCA 409

MIGRATION – Visa – Protection Visa – Protection (Class XA) visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – citizen of China claiming fear of persecution for reason of political opinion – whether applicant was denied procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal did not consider a relevant aspect of the applicant’s claim – where the applicant did not attend Court.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.474
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03C

Applicant: SZOZQ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 250 of 2011

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 31 May 2011

Date of Last Submission: 31 May 2011

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 31 May 2011

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr Wood

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed under r.13.03C of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001due to the non-attendance of the Applicant.

2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,040.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 250 of 2011

SZOZQ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. The Applicant is a citizen of China.  He has applied for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13^th January 2011, affirming a decision by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to grant him a Protection (Class XA) visa.

2. In his Application filed on 16^th February 2011, the Applicant seeks orders in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, expressed as:

   (1)    Order to set aside RRT’s decision.

   (2)    Review my case again by RRT.

3. The Applicant relies on the following grounds:

   (1)RRT considered my case unfairly.  They doubt my claim without substantive evidence.

   (2)    Procedural fairness has been denied by RRT.

   (3)RRT did not consider my situation in China.  I will be put in jail if I go back.

4. In his supporting affidavit, the Applicant deposes:

   I need religious freedom and I fear to go back to China.

5. The Minister has filed a Response opposing the orders sought by the Applicant and stating:

   The First Respondent does not admit that there is any jurisdictional error in the decision of the Second Respondent.

Background

1. On 28^th February 2011 the application was listed for Final Hearing at 2:15pm today.  The Applicant did not attend Court.  The matter was called at 2:17pm and again at 2:43pm, without appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant.

2. The Minister’s solicitor arranged to telephone the Applicant on his mobile telephone, with the assistance of the Mandarin-speaking interpreter.  He reported to the Court that the Applicant said that he was in Newcastle.

3. As the Applicant has not attended Court on the Final Hearing of the application, the application will be dismissed with costs.

4. The Minister seeks costs in the sum of $4,040.00, which I am satisfied is an appropriate amount.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate: 

Date:  31 May 2011