SZIRO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 260

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIRO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 260 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 424A SZIRO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1561 affirmed SJSB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 225 at [15] applied Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12 at 42-43 applied SZIRO, SZIRP, SZIRQ AND SZIRR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2108 OF 2006

HEEREY J

26 FEBRUARY 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2108 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIRO

First Appellant

SZIRP

Second Appellant

SZIRQ

Third Appellant

SZIRR

Fourth Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE OF ORDER: 26 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is 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 2108 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIRO

First Appellant

SZIRP

Second Appellant

SZIRQ

Third Appellant

SZIRR

Fourth Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE: 26 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett of 12 October 2006, SZIRO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1561. His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 16 March 2006. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellants. 2 The appellants are citizens of India who arrived in Australia on 1 August 2005. The appellants are a married couple and their two children. On 9 September 2005 the appellants lodged an application for a protection visa. Only the appellant husband made claims under the Convention. The appellant husband's application will govern the outcome of the applications of the other members of his family. I shall use the term appellant as referring to the appellant husband. 3 In the application for a protection visa the appellant claimed to have a well founded fear of persecution by reason of his political opinion. He claimed to be a freelance camera journalist who composed articles for the local newspaper about human rights issues in India. He asserted his photographs and writings enraged government supporters. Although he was threatened and told to stop writing he claimed that he continued and this enraged government supporters further. Subsequently the appellant and his family left India. 4 The delegate refused the application for a protection visa and on 16 November 2005 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for review. On 5 January 2006 the Tribunal sent a letter to the appellant advising that it was unable to make a decision in his favour on the information before it alone and inviting the appellant to appear before it. The Tribunal did not receive a response to this invitation. The appellant failed to appear at the appointed day of the hearing (23 February 2006). The Tribunal handed down its decision on 16 March 2006.