SZCJO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 48

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCJO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 48 SZCJO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1864 OF 2005 STONE J 6 FEBRUARY 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1864 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZCJO

APPELLANT

AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the first 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 1864 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZCJO

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 6 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 15 September 2005 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') made on 12 November 2003 and handed down on 4 December 2003. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.

Background 2 The appellant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 21 April 2003 and shortly thereafter lodged an application for a protection visa. For present purposes it is sufficient to note that the appellant made claims based on religion, political opinion and his membership of a particular social group. 3 In its reasons for decision the Tribunal stated that it had written to the appellant on 10 September 2003 advising him that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the material before it and inviting him to attend a hearing on 28 October 2003. The Tribunal advised the appellant that failure to attend might result in the Tribunal deciding his application without further notice. Although the appellant accepted the invitation he did not appear at the arranged time or otherwise contact the Tribunal. Pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)('the Act'), the Tribunal made its decision without further reference to the appellant and found that, in the absence of additional information, it was unable to clarify the complex claims made by the appellant. As a result, it was unable to satisfy itself that the appellant had a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution.