Applicant S1043 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1674

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1043 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FCA 1674

APPLICANT S1043/2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR

NSD 1655 OF 2006

DOWNES J
20 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1655 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1043/2003
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWNES J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Appeal 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 1655 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1043/2003
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWNES J
DATE:	20 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DOWNES J:

1. The appellant is a Pakistani who claims ethnically to be Qadiyani, of the Ahmadi faith, and Mohajir. He arrived in Australia on 3 October 1995. His application for a protection visa was refused on 10 September 1997. The Refugee Review Tribunal confirmed that decision on 10 August 1998.

2. On 17 May 2004 the appellant applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Lloyd-Jones FM dismissed the application on 8 August 2006. The appellant appeals to this Court. The appeal must be dismissed.

3. The appellant’s claims to refugee status were based upon alleged fear of persecution for reasons of race and religion. The Refugee Review Tribunal found that the appellant was not a credible witness. It went so far as saying that it was “unable to accept anything the applicant claimed to be true”. It rejected the appellant’s claims, including his basic claim that both he and his family had been persecuted for being Ahmadis. The Federal Magistrates Court found no error in this decision, although Lloyd-Jones FM reviewed the contents of the court book to see whether any potential error emerged.

4. No cogent ground of appeal appears from the Notice of Appeal. The appellant has appeared before me. He has not been able to articulate any ground of appeal. He has claimed generally that he fears for his life if he returns to Pakistan but he has not said anything which would amount to a basis for appeal. My reading of the papers does not disclose any available ground of appeal.

5. At the end of his submissions the appellant asked the court to adjourn the matter so he could consider afresh the position in Pakistan. I do not think the granting of such an adjournment would be appropriate. The appellant also referred to a desire to have time to make arrangements to return to Pakistan if his appeal was unsuccessful. This is a matter that he will be able to discuss with officers of the Department of Immigration.

6. This case has been determined on the facts.  It is not for the Federal Magistrates Court, or this court on appeal, to review findings of fact unless some error of law is involved.  The decision of Lloyd-Jones FM was correct for the reasons he gave.  There is no sustainable ground of appeal.  The appeal will 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 Downes.

Associate:

Dated:       20 November 2006

The appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents:	Ms S Hanstein
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	20 November 2006
Date of Judgment:	20 November 2006