SZDJN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 189 (7 February 2005)

Last Updated: 8 March 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDJN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 189

SZDJN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1774 OF 2004

GYLES J
7 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1774 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SZDJN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The appeal be dismissed.
2.	The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.

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 1774 OF 2004

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

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 A brief history of this matter is as follows. The appellant arrived in Australia on 28 September 2003. He lodged application for a protection visa on 3 October 2003. The visa was refused. He sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal was not satisfied by the written material supplied by the appellant and appointed a hearing on 12 February 2004. The appellant did not attend that hearing and the Tribunal made its decision pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 25 February 2004 the Tribunal decided that it was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations and that decision was handed down on 17 March 2004.

2 The application for review to the Federal Magistrates Court was filed on 21 April 2004. On 11 November 2004 the matter came on for hearing before Federal Magistrate Barnes who dismissed the application on that day having held that there was no jurisdictional error involved in the Tribunal proceeding in the absence of the appellant and that there was no jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

3 The notice of appeal dated 30 November 2004 to this court does not identify any ground of appeal in a conventional sense nor does it identify any error in the judgment below. The appellant has not filed any written submission or any further document which does identify such ground or such error. He has been unable to point to any such ground or error today.

4 In my opinion this appeal is totally without merit. It has caused considerable public expenditure and has been a complete waste of the time of both the Federal Magistrates Court and this Court. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated: 7 March 2005

Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	A McInerney
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	7 February 2005
Date of Judgment:	7 February 2005