SZLBL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 194

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLBL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 194 SZLBL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2150 OF 2007

MCKERRACHER J

29 FEBRUARY 2008 (REASONS PUBLISHED)

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2150 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZLBL

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MCKERRACHER J DATE OF ORDER: 28 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $600. 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 2150 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZLBL

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MCKERRACHER J

DATE: 29 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of aFederal Magistrate(Scarlett FM)made on 3 October 2007 (SZLBL v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1752). The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 25 May 2007. 2 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who applied for a protection visa on 9 March 2007. In his protection visa application, the applicant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution from his family and neighbours in Bangladesh for reason of his conversion from Islam to Christianity. The applicant claimed he grew up in an extremist Muslim family but did not believe in all the rules. He felt he needed 'a break' and after advising his family he wanted a better education, travelled to Australia. He claimed that whilst he was in Australia he was introduced to Christianity, attended church and consequently converted to Christianity. The applicant claimed that if he returned to Bangladesh, the authorities in Bangladesh would not be able to protect him as Christians are a minority group. 3 On 11 April 2007 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. On 19 April 2007 the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant, addressed to the applicant's address for correspondence as indicated in the application for review, in which it invited him to a hearing scheduled for 22 May 2007. The Tribunal in its decision noted there was no response to its invitation and that the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the scheduled date. The Tribunal stated that it proceeded to make a decision in the absence of the applicant pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).