VSAN v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 1990
•3 March 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| VSAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1990 |
| MIGRATION – No appearance by applicant. |
| Judiciary Act 1908 |
| Applicant: | VSAN |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | MLG 1527 of 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Phipps FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 March 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | Nil |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 3 March 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| There was no appearance for the Applicant |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Fairfield |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed at $5,900.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1527 of 2003
| VSAN |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application to review, pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1908, a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 2 July 2003.
The applicant is a national of India and he entered Australia on 12 August 2002. The next day he applied for a protection visa. On 10 September 2002, the applicant was refused by a delegate of the respondent. On 4 October 2002, the applicant applied for review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal, and on 2 July 2003, the tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. An application was filed in the Federal Court on 21 August 2003 and transferred to this Court.
The applicant has filed contentions of fact and law. The applicant claims to be a Sikh from Punjab in India and he claimed that Sikhs are discriminated against in India. He gave evidence of being in fights at school because of political conflict between the Akali Dal party and Congress party. He said that he belonged to the Akali Dal party. He then asserted that after elections in which the Congress party came to power, opposition members of parliament were gaoled.
The tribunal accepted that the applicant was an Indian national and a Sikh from the Punjab, but did not believe the applicant on all of the matters which might have been significant to his claim. The decision by the tribunal is therefore based on matters of fact. The contentions which have been filed attempt to reargue those matters of fact. The contentions do not even disclose an allegation of jurisdictional error, and given that the tribunal did not accept what the applicant said on all of the matters which were material to his claim, there could not have been any jurisdictional error. Consequently the application is dismissed.
The applicant has not appeared. The applicant was represented by solicitors who filed the application. They filed a notice of withdrawal of practitioner on 30 November 2004. Notification of today's hearing date had been given to the applicant's solicitors prior to that date by a letter dated 30 April 2004, so notice has been given to the applicant of this hearing. The application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding Five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Phipps FM
Associate: Sherryn Kwong
Date:
0
0
1