SZBNJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1387

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBNJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1387 SZBNJ V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N473 OF 2005 BENNETT J 14 SEPTEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 473 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZBNJ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 14 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the appeal be dismissed 2. the appellant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 473 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZBNJ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is an Indian national who claimed that he joined India's Congress Party in 1995-1996 and that his efforts with that Party led them to an election victory. He claims that he was held in such high regard that opposition forces pursued him for three years to join them. He says that when he refused, he was attacked and that he moved to another city but he was followed and assaulted. 2 By letter dated 9 July 2003, the appellant was informed that the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') was unable to make a decision on the information before it and he was invited to attend a hearing on 12 August 2003 to give oral evidence in support of his claims. However, no reply was received to that invitation and the letter was not returned unclaimed. The appellant did not appear at the hearing on the scheduled date and the Tribunal made a decision. There is no suggestion that the Tribunal did not follow the relevant statutory procedures. 3 When Federal Magistrate Barnes considered the matter on appeal, her Honour found that the Tribunal's decision to proceed to make a decision on the review without taking any further action was permitted by section 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). There is no appeal based upon this aspect of her Honour's reasons and it does not seem to me that her Honour was in error in that regard. 4 In his application to the Tribunal the appellant referred to his departmental file number and inserted that number. He also said as part of the grounds that he had a well-founded fear of persecution 'based on my documents forwarded with my application.' Those documents therefore came within section 424A(3)(b) of the Act. 5 The Tribunal considered the evidence before it, which included a consideration of a document that had been submitted by the appellant in support of his visa application. The Tribunal gave reasons and concluded that it was unable to accept the veracity of his claims. In coming to that conclusion, the Tribunal also relied upon country information that came within section 424A(3)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim was not plausible. 6 In particular, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's name was not mentioned in the independent country information and said that had the appellant attended the hearing it would have questioned him about his activities, including his political activities. The Tribunal said that without such further information from the appellant it was unable to accept that he had a profile such as to bring him to the adverse attention of the opposition parties as he had claimed. 7 The appellant asserted six general and unparticularised grounds of review in his amended application before her Honour. Her Honour dealt with each of those grounds and I can see no error in her Honour's reasons.