SZDMZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 115 (7 February 2005)

Last Updated: 22 February 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDMZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 115

SZDMZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1889 OF 2004



HELY J
7 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1889 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SZDMZ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed with costs.















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 1889 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SZDMZ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	7 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The applicant is a citizen of Thailand who arrived in Australia on 16 January 2003. Her application for a protection visa was unsuccessful and she sought a review of the decision not to grant a visa by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the RRT’). Although the applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the RRT she failed to do so and did not provide any explanation to the RRT for her absence.

2 The RRT took the view that her application was lacking in detail and that the applicant’s claim of a well-founded fear of persecution because of her religion was inconsistent with the country information available to the RRT. Accordingly, in a decision handed down on 19 August 2003, the RRT affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant because it was not satisfied that the applicant had the status of a refugee.

3 Application for judicial review of that decision was made to the Federal Magistrates Court, which was determined by Federal Magistrate Smith on 10 November 2004. The application for review was dismissed because the Federal Magistrate was unable to conclude that any procedure followed by the RRT caused an unfairness to the applicant nor was his Honour able to identify any procedure set out in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) which the Tribunal is required to follow but which it did not observe. His Honour recited the RRT’s finding that the applicant’s claims were lacking in detail and inconsistent with the independent information and his Honour was unable to identify any error of law in the RRT’s reasonings.

4 The time for lodging an appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrate expired on 1 December 2004. On 17 December 2004 the applicant lodged a document styled Application for Leave to Appeal which I am prepared to treat as an application for an extension of time within which to appeal. The applicant relied in support of her application on the fact that she is unrepresented and did not know the time limit for filing an appeal.

5 A draft notice of appeal was lodged in support of the application. The draft notice of appeal follows a form which by now has become familiar, but it does not disclose any sufficiently particularised ground of appeal related to the circumstances of the applicant’s case which would enable a conclusion to be drawn that if she were permitted to appeal the appeal would have some prospect of success.

6 This morning the applicant filed a document styled Submissions which I have had placed with the papers. Much of the material contained in that document does not have any apparent connection with the particular circumstances of the present case and much of the document effectively but impermissibly seeks merits review of the applicant’s case.

7 The applicant has not established that if she were permitted to appeal that appeal would have any prospects of success. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal should be dismissed as there is no utility in extending time for an appeal when it has not been shown that the appeal enjoys any reasonable prospects of success. The application is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.

Associate:

Dated: 21 February 2005

	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	7 February 2005
Date of Judgment:	7 February 2005