MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming persecution in New Zealand – applicant’s fears found not to be well-founded or Convention related – applicant wishing to remain in Australia with his children – whether the Tribunal erred in its consideration of the complementary protection criterion in view of the cancellation of the applicant’s Australian residence visa and the impact of separation from his Australian children considered.
The application filed on 20 August 2012 is dismissed.
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY
SYG 1794 of 2012
SZRSN
Applicant
And
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction and background
This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 30 June 2012. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant is from New Zealand and had claimed protection because of a fear of violence in New Zealand. He also made clear that he wanted to remain in Australia with his children and that he does not have family or friends in New Zealand, apart from his estranged father. This case raises issues in particular about complementary protection in circumstances of forced separation of a parent from his children.
The following statement of background facts is derived from the initial submissions of the Minister filed on 18 October 2012 and supplementary submissions filed on 7 February 2013.
The applicant is a male citizen of New Zealand born on 18 January 1984.[1]
[1] Court Book (CB) 13–14
The applicant arrived in Australia on 13 July 1995, when he was 11 years of age, with his mother and brother.[2] On the same day, the applicant was granted a subclass TY 444…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading SZRSN v MIAC
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FMCA 78
Case
[2013] FMCA 78
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the Federal Magistrates Court was an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a New Zealand citizen, had arrived in Australia as a child and had since become a father to five children, three of whom are his biological offspring. His Australian residence visa was cancelled on character grounds, and he applied for a protection visa, fearing persecution in New Zealand due to violence and lack of support. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were not well-founded and did not meet the criteria for protection or complementary protection under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the impact of his separation from his Australian children as a form of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion.
The court examined whether the Tribunal constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not adequately considering the applicant's separation from his children. It found that the Tribunal's consideration of complementary protection was brief but noted that the issue of forced separation from children is complex. The court concluded that forced separation does not constitute 'significant harm' or 'degrading treatment' under the Migration Act because it is a consequence of removal, not an act intended to cause extreme humiliation. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no jurisdictional error and dismissing the application. The court ordered that the parties address the issue of costs.