SZRLF v Minister for Immigration
[2012] FMCA 663
•31 July 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRLF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2012] FMCA 663 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming religious persecution in China – applicant not believed – interlocutory dismissal of show cause application by consent. |
| Applicant: | SZRLF |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 945 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | 31 July 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 31 July 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
The Applicant appeared by telephone
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms M Stone DLA Piper |
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
By consent, the application filed on 24 April 2012 is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 945 of 2012
| SZRLF |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
I have before me an application filed on 24 April 2012 seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 22 March 2012. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant is from Fujian Province in China and had made claims of religious persecution. He arrived in Australia on 8 December 2007 and applied to the Minister’s Department for a protection visa on 29 March 2011. The delegate rejected that application on 23 June 2011 and notified the applicant of the decision. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision on 18 July 2011.
The applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal at which he was questioned about his assertions of past harm in China, his religious practice both in China and in Australia, and the future harm he feared. The Tribunal made comprehensive adverse credibility findings against the applicant. The Tribunal found that neither the applicant nor his father, who he asserted had suffered harm in China because of his faith, are, or were Christians, or that either had attended or participated in any church or Christian activities in China or in Australia.
The application filed on 24 April 2012 contains a single unparticularised allegation that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The matter came before me for directions on 6 June 2012. The applicant attended with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. At that time I listed the matter for a show cause hearing today and provided the applicant with the opportunity to file and serve an amended application and additional evidence. The applicant has not filed anything further.
The applicant elected not to participate in the Minister’s Panel Advice Scheme.
When the matter was called today there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. The matter was called twice at 2.23pm and 2.36pm. Before I came on the bench my associate, with the assistance of the Mandarin interpreter engaged for today’s hearing, attempted to contact the applicant on his nominated mobile telephone number. I understand that that attempt was successful and that a male person answered the telephone and, on being told what the call was about, asked some person in the background what the date was. The male person then disconnected the line.
After the matter was called twice, and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant, I adjourned for a short time to enable a second attempt to be made to contact the applicant on his nominated mobile telephone number. On this occasion the applicant answered and confirmed who he was. I was able to speak to him when I returned to the bench. He said that he was not in Sydney and had something else to do. He did not dispute that he was aware of the Court hearing this afternoon, but said, in effect, that he preferred to do whatever else he is doing today. I asked the applicant if he had lost interest in his application and he said that that was basically right. I asked him whether in the circumstances he would consent to an order dismissing his application and he said that he would.
I then raised with the applicant the question of costs and warned him that he may be liable to a costs order in consequence of the dismissal of the application in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court scale in the sum of $3,239 or thereabouts. The applicant said that there was nothing he could say in relation to the issue of costs. I gave him the option of remaining on the line until the conclusion of today’s hearing or to disconnect and he elected to disconnect.
In the circumstances, I will order by consent that the application filed on 24 April 2012 is dismissed.
In consequence of that dismissal, the Minister seeks an order for costs fixed in the sum of $3,000. As I have noted, the applicant has nothing to say on that issue. I will order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,000.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Date: 1 August 2012
0
0
0