VJAF v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VJAF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 794

MIGRATION – Protection visa application – whether not hearing oral evidence of witness breach of natural justice – whether Tribunal required to give applicant notice of country information.

Judiciary Act1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958, s.420

VBAC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[2003] FCA 205
R v The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546
VAAC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 573
VHAJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 186

Applicant: VJAF

Respondent: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: MZ 656 of 2003

Delivered on: 12 November 2004

Delivered at: Melbourne

Hearing date: 4 February 2004

Judgment of: Phipps FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Krohn

Solicitors for the Applicant: Clothier Anderson & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Moore

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed at $6,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 656 of 2004

VJAF

Applicant

And

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") given on 20 September 2002 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant. Review is sought pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act1903 (Cth).

2. The applicant is a national of Cambodia.  He entered Australia on approximately 18 April 2000 with his wife, one son and one daughter.  Three other children remained in Cambodia.  On 23 May 2000, the applicant made an application for protection visas for himself, his wife, son and daughter.

3. On 31 July 2000, a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the protection visas to the applicants.  On 18 August 2000, the applicant and his family members applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. On 29 August 2002, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.  Application to review the decision was filed in the Federal Court on 16 October 2002.  On 30 January 2003 North J. transferred the application to the Federal Magistrates Court.

The applicant's claims

1. The applicant said that since the overthrow of Pol Pot in Cambodia, he had been a successful businessman.  He said that his business interests prospered and made him wealthy.  He said that in 1990 he sent his five children to be educated in Thailand.

2. He said that on 17 March 1997 he joined the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) and that was when his trouble with the government started.  Previously, he had made large donations to Hun Sen’s People's Party because donations were expected and it was difficult to do business without making those donations but he had always opposed the corruption and arrogance of the ruling party officials.  He claimed he…