SZJEV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1880

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJEV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1880

SZJEV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1670 OF 2007

SPENDER J

19 NOVEMBER 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1670 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZJEV

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 NOVEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $1,500.00. 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 1670 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZJEV

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SPENDER J

DATE: 19 NOVEMBER 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 From the very limited material put before the Court by the appellant, it is necessary for me to dismiss the appeal. 2 This is an appeal from the judgment of Barnes FM delivered on 2 August 2007. The appellant is a citizen of India from Mumbai who arrived in Australia on 24 December 2005. 3 On 7 February 2006 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. A delegate of the first respondent Minister refused the application for a protection visa on 6 March 2006. 4 On 28 March 2006 he applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of that decision. On 28 June 2006, the Tribunal dismissed his application for review. The decision of the Tribunal was handed down on 18 July 2006. 5 The Tribunal noted that there were inconsistencies between the appellant's application for a protection visa and the oral evidence he gave at the hearing. The Tribunal accepted the claims of the appellant in relation to his grounds for persecution, but it was not satisfied that the persecution was related to a Convention reason. It found that the Muslim man's (Mr Khan) hatred of the appellant and his father was motivated by financial gain and not for a Convention reason. 6 Further, the Tribunal considered that relocation was reasonable. The appellant, said the Tribunal, had acknowledged that his problems were highly localized and found that there were several states ruled by Shiv Sena where there was no real chance of persecution by persons associated with the Congress Party. This conclusion was founded in independent country evidence. 7 The appellant appealed to the Federal Magistrates Court. One of the grounds before the Federal Magistrate was that: The Tribunal did not take into account all relevant information and therefore erred in law. 8 In respect of this ground, her Honour found no basis for that contention. In her Honour's reasons for judgment, she said that the Tribunal accepted the appellant's factual claims but did not accept that these incidents had occurred essentially and significantly for a Convention reason. 9 It had regard to the fact that at the hearing the applicant had repeatedly said that the reason behind Mr Khan's hatred for him and his father was their practice of selling fruit at a cheaper price and the consequential financial loss to Mr Khan's business. Further, the Tribunal found that there was no acceptable reason to suggest that he was unable to relocate within India. 10 The only ground of appeal pleaded which is truly a ground of appeal is that: The RRT erred in failing to consider all claims and issues put forward by me. 11 This is the same ground as was argued before the learned Federal Magistrate. That ground was considered by her Honour and her Honour concluded that there was no basis for the contention that the Tribunal did not consider all relevant information. Barnes FM concluded that no jurisdictional error had been established and dismissed the application. 12 Before this Court, in short oral submissions, the appellant repeated his claim that the Tribunal erred in failing to consider all claims and issues put forward by him. He also added that he was unable to put further evidence before the Tribunal. Nothing in the material before this Court suggests that Barnes FM erred in her Honour's conclusion that no jurisdictional error had been established. The consequence is that the appeal to this Court must be dismissed with costs. 13 That conclusion is fortified by the complaints by the appellant which are to be found in the affidavit filed in support of his appeal to this Court. That affidavit contains the following statements: I disagree with the decision of RRT. … The member did not believe of my problems in India …. I strongly and firmly believe that I have legitimate claims for a protection visa. I do believe that if I am compelled to go back to my country I will be persecuted. 14 The appellant also swore: The RRT did not account that fear of persecution and made decision without considering this issue in his decision. 15 That complaint was, in my view, correctly rejected by the Federal Magistrate. 16 For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed. 17 In the circumstances, the Minister seeks costs only in the sum of $1,500.00. In my opinion this is a fair and reasonable amount to fix for the Minister's costs. 18 I therefore order in respect of costs that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $1,500.00. I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.