SZFCN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1433

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFCN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1433

MIGRATION – no issue of principle SZFCN AND SZFCO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1055 of 2005

CONTI J 15 SEPTEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1055 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFCN

FIRST APPLICANT

SZFCO

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: CONTI J

DATE OF ORDER: 15 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. 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 1055 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFCN

FIRST APPLICANT

SZFCO

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: CONTI J

DATE: 15 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Barnes FM dated 14 June 2005 whereby her Honour dismissed the appellants' application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 26 October 2004, which affirmed an earlier decision of a Ministerial delegate not to grant protection visas to the appellants. 2 The facts and background circumstances are conveniently set out at [2] to [3] of her Honour's reasons for judgment: '2. The [appellants] are husband and wife and citizens of Mongolia. They arrived in Australia on 21 February 2004 and sought protection visas. Only the husband made specific claims for asylum. No specific Convention claims were made by or on behalf of the [appellant] wife. The [appellant] husband provided a statement in support of his protection visa application in which he claimed to fear persecution in Mongolia for reason of his political opinion. 3. He claimed to have been an active member of an organisation known as the 'New Leaders Club' since 1998 and to have agitated against the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (the MPRP). He claimed that he had been warned by an officer of the National Security Service that he might face serious consequences such as prosecution for drug dealing or child molestation if he continued his political activities.' 3 Neither of the appellants appeared at today's hearing of their appeal. Tendered by the respondents were two letters addressed to the appellants' address for service, the first dated 25 August 2005 and the second bearing yesterday's date (and a stamp indicating that it was sent by courier), each of which referred to the need for the appellants to attend today's hearing. Those letters detailed the time, date and location of the hearing, and the contact phone number of the Minister's solicitor. Upon the application of the Minister made under O 52 r 38A of the Federal Court Rules, I proceeded with the hearing of the appeal in the appellants' absence.