SZBZS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 61 (8 February 2005)

Last Updated: 9 February 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBZS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 61

SZBZS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1508 OF 2004


STONE J
8 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1508 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZBZS APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal 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 1508 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	8 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Nicholls FM in which his Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) handed down on 29 October 2003. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister who, on 3 September 2002, refused the appellant’s application for a protection visa. Pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the Chief Justice has directed that the matter be heard and determined by a single judge.

2 The Federal Magistrate found that the Tribunal had considered all the material before it and that its conclusions of fact were open to it and that no error was demonstrated. His Honour accepted the respondent’s submission that the appellant was unsuccessful before the Tribunal because it found that she was not a credible witness; it found some of her claims implausible and was unconvinced by her explanations. The grounds of review before his Honour were not particularised and although the appellant was given the opportunity to provide further details she failed to do so.

3 The notice of appeal filed by the appellant on 15 October 2004 alleges as the only ground of appeal, ‘did not understood (sic) the full scope of the proceeding’. On 4 November 2004 I gave the appellant leave to file an amended notice of appeal but no such notice has been filed. Accordingly no grounds of appeal have been identified. At the hearing of the appeal the appellant was unable to advance the matter. Although she spoke at length her submissions all amounted to a plea that the Court review her case on the merits. As I explained to her this Court has no jurisdiction to do this. In the circumstances I have no option but to dismiss the appeal. The appellant must bear the costs of the appeal.

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

Associate:

Dated: 8 February 2005

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel of the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	8 February 2005
Date of Judgment:	8 February 2005