SZAHL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 155 (25 February 2004)

Last Updated: 1 March 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAHL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 155

SZAHL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 2354 of 2003




WILCOX J
25 FEBRUARY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 2354 of 2003

BETWEEN:	SZAHL APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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	N 2354 of 2003

BETWEEN:	SZAHL APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	25 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1 This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Raphael, given on 20 November 2003. The Chief Justice directed that the appeal to this Court be heard by a single judge. Consequently, I am exercising the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

2 Raphael FM dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made on 3 March 2003. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’), to refuse to grant to the appellant a protection visa.

3 The Tribunal member was not persuaded that the appellant entertained a genuine fear of persecution on account of his political opinion if he returned to his native Bangladesh. In large measure, the reasons of the Tribunal arose out of its inability to accept many of the factual allegations made by the appellant.

4 Raphael FM noted that no argument had been put to him of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. He accepted that the appellant was disappointed by the Tribunal's decision, but he thought that the application before him was really an attempt to have the Court reconsider the facts of the case. The Magistrate correctly observed that the Court's powers were limited to consideration of the question of whether the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error. As he saw no such error, he dismissed the application for review with costs.

5 When the matter came before me for a directions hearing, I appointed out to the appellant that it was necessary for him to identify jurisdictional error if he was to succeed in this appeal. The appellant subsequently filed a document called ‘Applicant written Arguments’, which I have read. The arguments in the document deal entirely with matters of fact. Towards the end of the document is a list of grounds, any one of which, if made out, would establish jurisdictional error. However, this is simply a list of grounds, without any attempt being made to relate the grounds to the Tribunal's decision or the Magistrate's reasoning. I see no basis for imputing any of these grounds to the Tribunal.

6 It seems to me this appeal is yet another attempt by the appellant to re-agitate the facts of the case. This course is not open to him. The appeal should be dismissed with costs. I so order.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated: 1 March 2004

The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	25 February 2004
Date of Judgment:	25 February 2004