SZEIL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1067

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEIL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1067 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 426A SZEIL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 840 of 2005 BRANSON J 21 JULY 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 840 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZEIL

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 JULY 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3 000.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 840 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZEIL

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 21 JULY 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court by which the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') was dismissed. On 21 July 2005 I dismissed the appeal with costs at the completion of oral argument. I indicated at that time that I would publish brief reasons for judgment at a later date. These are my reasons for judgment. 2 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 14 March 2004. He adheres to the Hindu religion. By his application for a protection visa he claimed that he lived in a Muslim dominated suburb of Hyderabad where he was attacked and threatened because of his religion. He claimed that because of political support his attackers could mistreat him with impunity and he was unable to relocate because the same threat would apply elsewhere. 3 A delegate of the first respondent was satisfied that the appellant is not a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees ('the Refugee Convention'). 4 The appellant applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the delegate. He did not provide any details of his claim to be entitled to a protection visa in his application to the Tribunal stating merely that he would submit a full report later. He did not do so. 5 The appellant accepted an invitation to appear before the Tribunal to give oral evidence and present arguments in support of his claim. His response to the invitation indicated that he would bring two friends to the hearing which was scheduled for 15 July 2004. 6 On 14 July 2004 the Tribunal received a letter dated 13 July 2004 from the appellant. The letter stated that he would be unable to attend the hearing as scheduled 'because I am sick and am at the GP for referral to a specialist'. The letter asserted that a medical certificate would be sent by the next mail. The letter makes no reference to the two friends who were to accompany the appellant to the hearing. 7 The Tribunal did not receive a medical certificate by the next mail or at all. It does not appear that either of the friends referred to in the appellant's response to the hearing invitation attended the scheduled hearing.