SZEAY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1759 (29 November 2005)

Last Updated: 14 December 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEAY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1759

SZEAY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1937 OF 2005

MOORE J
29 NOVEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1937 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZEAY APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 NOVEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent's 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 1937 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZEAY APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	29 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 30 September 2005 dismissing an application for judicial review. The appellant sought to challenge in the Federal Magistrates Court a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 15 June 2004 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The appellant is a Chinese national and claimed to have a well founded fear of persecution because of his religion. He claimed to be of Christian faith. The appellant appears to have raised a number of grounds before the Federal Magistrate which were dealt with in his Honour's reasons for judgment. The Federal Magistrate was found that there had not been any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

3 The notice of appeal arguably raises three issues. One was that the Tribunal was biased. Another was that the Tribunal did not give the appellant an opportunity to present his case and based its decision on irrelevant material. No case of bias was made out before the Federal Magistrate and no error is apparent in the Federal Magistrate's conclusion on that ground. Similarly, the Federal Magistrate was correct in rejecting the suggestion that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to put his case to the Tribunal. The suggestion that the Tribunal made its decision by reference to irrelevant material is not apparent from a reading of the Tribunal's reasons for decision. The appellant has not established that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing his application for judicial review. The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated: 13 December 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the First Respondent:	J Mitchell
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	29 November 2005
Date of Judgment:	29 November 2005