SZJBC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 156

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJBC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 156 SZJBC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1982 OF 2006

MIDDLETON J

15 FEBRUARY 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1982 OF 2006

BETWEEN: SZJBC

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MIDDLETON J DATE OF ORDER: 15 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The first respondent be correctly named as the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. 2. The application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed with 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 1982 OF 2006

BETWEEN: SZJBC

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MIDDLETON J

DATE: 15 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrateof12 September 2006. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The application was filed on 11 October 2006. An extension of time is required because a notice of appeal was not filed within 21 days of the judgment having been pronounced: O 52 r 15(1) of the Federal Court Rules.

Procedural background and applicant's claims 2 The applicant is a citizen of India. Before the Tribunal the applicant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion and claimed to have been persecuted by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as he was an active member of the Congress Party. The applicant claimed that he feared for the safety of his family and that he had been threatened on the telephone and physically. The applicant also claimed that the authorities would not protect him, and that the BJP would collude with local police to falsely prosecute him. 3 In a letter dated 27 April 2006 the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing but no response was received to this invitation. The applicant did not attend the hearing and the Tribunal proceeded pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') to make a decision without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear. The Tribunal accepted the applicant was a citizen of India but it was not satisfied the applicant was an active member of the Congress Party or that he had been threatened by the BJP. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of persecution for his political opinion.