SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 205 (19 February 2007)

Last Updated: 27 February 2007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 205

SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1703 upheld




























SZHCJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2275 OF 2006

GYLES J
19 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2275 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZHCJ Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the costs of the first 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 2275 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZHCJ Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	19 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1	This is a purported appeal from a decision of Scarlett FM delivered on 1 November 2006 (SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1703). The notice of appeal does not disclose any proper ground of appeal. There are several general grounds set out with no particularisation and no reference back to the learned Federal Magistrate’s decision so as to identify error. The affidavit which has been filed in support suffers from the same defect. That defect is pointed out in the written submissions for the first respondent. Indeed it is apparent from the judgment below, that there was no proper ground of application before the Federal Magistrates Court.
2	The decision below afforded considerable leeway to the present appellant in presenting a case which had not been particularised. The Federal Magistrate carefully considered not just the general grounds enunciated, but other grounds, and rejected each of them, having considered the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
3	At the beginning of this appeal hearing, I pointed out to the appellant the necessity to show error in the Federal Magistrate’s decision before this Court can intervene. Recognising the difficulty that he has as an unrepresented party, what he then had to say made it clear that his grievance is as to the merits of the Tribunal’s decision. He regarded the Tribunal’s rejection of all of his claims as being unfair and biased. I should, again, make clear that the role of the Federal Court in this proceeding is to correct any errors made by the Federal Magistrate in the Federal Magistrates Court. Insofar as the Federal Magistrates Court is concerned, it has no role to second guess the Tribunal on matters of fact or judgment. The Federal Magistrates Court can only correct the Tribunal if jurisdictional error is revealed.
4	There being no proper ground of appeal raised or argued, there is no basis upon which the appeal can succeed. The appeal is dismissed. I order that the appellant pay the costs of the first 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: 26 February 2007

	The Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mr R White of Sparke Helmore

Date of Hearing:	19 February 2007
Date of Judgment:	19 February 2007