SZRJQ v Minister for Immigration
[2012] FMCA 1205
•4 December 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRJQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2012] FMCA 1205 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where applicant wishes to withdraw proceedings. |
| Applicant: | SZRJQ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 841 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 December 2012 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 December 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 4 December 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 841 of 2012
| SZRJQ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 21 March 2012. The application was made on 17 April 2012. The grounds of the application were:
“1. I am a Chinese citizen and Christian who has been persecuted by the Chinese government. I had been arrested by the corrupted government and police.
2. I can not go back to China since I am very scared to be sentenced.
3. The Chinese Government still looks for me if I return. My friends told me not to go back since the police are still looking for me.
4. I need religion freedom and I fear to go back to China.”
None of those grounds constitute an indication of a jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. The applicant attended a first court date hearing on 31 May 2012 when she was given leave to file an Amended Application by 28 June, she did not do so. The matter was set down for hearing today. When the matter was called on for hearing the applicant attended with an interpreter. After I had asked her to tell me why she believed the Tribunal had made an error of law in the manner in which it had reached its decision I was informed by Ms Johnson, who appears for the respondent, that the applicant had indicated to her that she did not wish to continue with these proceedings.
I asked the applicant whether this was the case. I explained to the applicant what this court could do and what it could not do in relation to her claim. For example, I explained to her that the court could not grant her a visa. I also explained to her that the court can not concern itself with the truth or otherwise of her story that she was a Christian and a member of the Jehovah’s witnesses. The applicant considered her decision. She asked a question concerning an appeal. I told the applicant that she had to make up her mind whether she wished to proceed with this hearing today as I was not prepared to grant her an adjournment or whether she wished not to continue with it in which case I would dismiss the proceedings.
After some thought and discussion with the interpreter the applicant has told me that she does not wish to continue with this application today. In those circumstances, the application is dismissed. The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $4,000.00.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Date: 13 December 2012
0
0
0