SZIUM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 422

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIUM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 422 SZIUM AND SZIUN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2237 OF 2006

CONTI J

23 MARCH 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2237 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIUM

First Appellant

SZIUN

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: CONTI J DATE OF ORDER: 23 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent. 3. The appeal be dismissed. 4. The second appellant pay the first respondent's 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 2237 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIUM

First Appellant

SZIUN

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: CONTI J

DATE: 23 MARCH 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Smith, delivered on 26 October 2006, whereby his Honour dismissed an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), made on 23 March 2006 and handed down on 4 April 2006, being a decision which affirmed separate decisions of the Minister's delegate made on 12 December 2005 adversely to the appellants. 2 The first appellant is the son of the second appellant. The family's history of association with Australia traces back to 1993, when the wife/mother of the appellants commenced making a series of visits to Australia. The appellant father first visited Australia in 1994. He and his wife last came to Australia in 1997, and their son, the first appellant in the present proceedings, was born in Australia in January 1998. Indonesia is the country of nationality of all members of the family. 3 Separate applications for protection visas were made in 1998 by the wife and in 1999 by the daughter of the husband and wife. Though named as members of the family unit in that application, the father and son did not at that time put forward separate refugee claims. The wife's application was refused initially by a delegate of the Minister on 25 April 1998 and on review by the Tribunal on 30 November 1999. The family was taken into immigration detention in 2005, having by that time exhausted for the time being avenues for judicial review. However, a decision was subsequently made that the father and son were not prevented by the provisions of s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 ('the Act') from making second applications for protection visas. 4 Other events in the somewhat complex background to the respective claims, and the pursuit thereof, are conveniently recorded in the reasons for decision of Smith FM below.