SZRRJ v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZRRJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2012] FMCA 1074

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of time – whether acceptable explanation for delay in making of application – whether extension would prejudice respondent – whether Tribunal came to adverse credibility finding without giving opportunity to be heard – where applicant contests Tribunal’s conclusions of fact – whether Tribunal failed to make obvious inquiries – whether any merit in substantive application – whether to grant extension of time.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.425, 477(1), (2)

Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Minister for Immigration & Anor v SZIAI (2009) 259 ALR 429
SZHVL v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FCA 356
Seyfarth v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2004] FCA 1713
VCAK of 2002 v Minister  for Immigration & Anor [2004] FCA 459
Minister for Immigration & Anor v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12

Applicant: SZRRJ

First Respondent:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
Second Respondent:	REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1640 of 2012

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 9 November 2012

Date of Last Submission: 9 November 2012

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 November 2012

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

1. Application for extension of time dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $3,239.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1640 of 2012

SZRRJ

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 12 April 2008.  On 28 April 2011 he applied for a protection (Class XA) visa.  On 27 July 2011 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant him a protection visa and on 25 August 2011 he applied for review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal held three hearings with the applicant, the first on 31 January 2012, the second on 20 February 2012 and a final one on 18 April 2012.  On 8 June 2012 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant the protection visa.

2. The grounds upon which the applicant claimed to be a person whom Australia owed protection obligations and/or was entitled to complimentary protection was the convention one of religion/political opinion/membership of a particular social group.  The applicant claimed that although he was born into a Hindu family he converted to Sikhism in 2003.  He became actively involved in the AKJ and he converted his own wife to the Sikh religion.  This caused considerable problems within his family and his wife eventually left him.  He believes that if he returns to India, Hindu extremist groups the RSS and the VHP, would persecute him and possibly kill him because he is a member of the AKJ.  He does not believe he would obtain protection from the Indian police authorities and he believes he is in danger from his wife’s…