SZBDK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 639 (16 May 2005)

Last Updated: 24 May 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBDK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 639

MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – no point of principle





Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474




Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 191 ALR 601 referred to




















SZBDK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 445 OF 2005

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
16 MAY 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 445 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZBDK APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The appeal be dismissed.
2.	The appellant pay the 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 445 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

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

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	16 MAY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Driver given on 14 March 2005 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") given on 17 June 2003. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Department not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on 3 May 2005 and sets out a number of grounds of appeal. When the matter came on for hearing before me this morning, the appellant did not add anything by way of submission to spell out the substance of any arguments in relation to any of the grounds of appeal.

3 The grounds of appeal and their generalised nature can be seen from the following description. The first ground in the Amended Notice of Appeal is that the Federal Magistrate failed to find an error of law, a jurisdictional error or a breach of procedural fairness or to grant relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The appellant says that the grounds are similar to the High Court’s decision in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 191 ALR 601. It is alleged that the trial Judge erred in considering the real state of affairs of the appellant, the appellant’s fear of harm and the failure of the government to protect the lives of civilians.

4 The appellant also referred to a number of other generalised grounds, such as that s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was ineffective in relation to the appellant and that the Federal Magistrate had failed to find that the appellant was a member of a particular social group and that he was persecuted because of his religious beliefs. He said he was not satisfied with the comments in the reasons of the Federal Magistrate regarding his persecution and said that he did not provide a transcript of the Tribunal hearing because of his financial hardship. He also said that the Tribunal did not disclose the adverse country information which it used against him and that the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to find that there was an error in the hearing before the Tribunal.

5 The facts of this matter are set out in the judgment below at [1] and I will not repeat them here. The Federal Magistrate summarised the decision of the Tribunal and noted that the appellant was represented by Mr Khan of Ward Maxwell and Co on the directions hearing on 20 October 2003. The Federal Magistrate then considered the grounds in the application and found there was no substance in any of them.

6 In the absence of any submissions made to me on the appeal, and in view of the regularity in the reasons for judgment of the Federal Magistrate and the Tribunal, I find there was no jurisdictional error disclosed in the present case and I dismiss the appeal with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated: 24 May 2005

The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	16 May 2005
Date of Judgment:	16 May 2005