Affairs

[2004] FCA 66

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAEM v Minister for Immigration and multicultural and Indigenous

Affairs [2004] FCA 66

MIGRATION – no point of law.

SZAEM & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1416 OF 2003

CONTI J
6 FEBRUARY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1416 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

SZAEM
FIRST APPELLANT

SZAEN
SECOND APPELLANT

SZAEO
THIRD APPELLANT

SZAEP
FOURTH APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellants 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	N 1416 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

SZAEM
FIRST APPELLANT

SZAEN
SECOND APPELLANT

SZAEO
THIRD APPELLANT

SZAEP
FOURTH APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the decision of Federal Magistrate Driver [2003 FMCA 368] delivered on 27 August 2003, whereby his Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘RRT’) which affirmed in turn a decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant to the appellants protection visas.

2. The background to the appeal is set out in his Honour’s reasons for judgment.  The appellant was unsuccessful because of the view taken by the RRT as to the lack of credibility of the facts put forward by the appellant, and because the appellant failed to identify any legal error in the RRT’s decision, but merely took issue with its findings of fact.

3. The grounds of appeal from the decision of Driver FM disclose no viable basis in law for setting aside his Honour’s decision.  They bear the hallmarks of a precedent drafted by a migration agent, without any realistic endeavour to gear the same to the circumstances placed before his Honour.  They comprise sweeping or generalised assertions, for instance as to actual bias, based upon the RRT’s rejection of the claims advanced by the appellant to the RRT, and as to its failure to accept that the appellant’s claims were genuinely and truthfully put forward.  There is also a claim made on behalf of the applicants that ‘… if I returned back to Pakistan now I will be persecute (sic) because of my religious believe…’.  In addition it is claimed by the RRT that the decision maker did not act in good faith. 

4. A number of legal propositions, expressed in general or unspecific terms, are put forward, which are not specifically or else appropriately related to any findings or the conduct of the RRT and of the Court below.

5. The appeal is plainly misconceived and lacking any viable basis or merit according to law, as demonstrated in the submissions of counsel for the Minister.  I would merely add the observation that the husband and wife applicants presented to the Court as pleasant and courteous persons, but entirely unqualified to advance any legal merits of their case beyond the usual rehearsed catchwords doubtless provided by their migration agent.

6. This appeal must be dismissed 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 Conti.

Associate:

Dated:             18 February 2004

The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	6 February 2004
Date of Judgment:	6 February 2004