MZXRK v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 125 (3 April 2008)

Last Updated: 8 April 2008

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZXRK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2008] FMCA 125

MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – claimed persecution on the grounds of religion – Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon – whether harm feared was serious harm or discrimination – whether Tribunal considered claims – application dismissed.

Applicant:

MZXRK

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

MLG 927 of 2007

Judgment of:

Riley FM

Hearing date:

7 February 2008

Date of Last Submission:

7 February 2008

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

3 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

John A. Gibson

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Haag Walker Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents:

Sharon Burchell

Solicitors for the Respondents:

DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

(1) The application filed on 5 July 2007 and amended on 7 September 2007 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

MLG 927 of 2007

MZXRK

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant is the adult son of a husband and wife who are applicants in a related matter, namely, MZXRI and Anor v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2008] FMCA 124. The applications of the husband, wife and son were heard together before the Tribunal and before this court. The applicant and his parents are citizens of Lebanon and are Jehovah's Witnesses.
2. The present applicant’s application was identical to that of his parents except that:
   1. the present applicant was not an elder of his faith; and
   2. he claimed that he had been unable to continue at university because:
      1. he felt isolated and pressured psychologically because of his faith; and
      2. people had been unfriendly to him.
3. The Tribunal said that it sympathised with the applicant but did not consider that the harm he suffered was of such magnitude as to constitute serious harm.
4. The grounds of review in this case and arguments in support of and against those grounds were the same as in the application made by the present applicant’s parents. For the reasons given in that decision, the present application must be dismissed.
5. As this matter was heard with the related matter, it may be appropriate to depart from the usual costs order in this case or in the related matter. Accordingly, I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of RILEY FM

Associate: Catherine Wilson

Date: 3 April 2008