Buksh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1629

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Buksh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1629

FAIMUL FEROZA BUKSH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 967 OF 2001

LINDGREN, TAMBERLIN AND FINN JJ
12 NOVEMBER 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 967 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	FAIMUL FEROZA BUKSH APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	LINDGREN, TAMBERLIN AND FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 NOVEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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 967 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	FAIMUL FEROZA BUKSH APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	LINDGREN, TAMBERLIN AND FINN JJ
DATE:	12 NOVEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. The appellant (“Ms Buksh”), who appears in person, appeals from a decision of Stone J given on 20 June 2001, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant Ms Buksh a protection visa. 

2. Ms Buksh did not appear on the hearing before her Honour but faxed to the Court on the day of the hearing a note saying she was “refusing” to attend Court because she was sick, and, in substance, asking for an adjournment.  The note was not accompanied by a medical certificate or other supporting evidence.  Her Honour said she did not regard Ms Buksh’s unsupported note as affording sufficient ground for delaying the hearing. 

3. Stone J did not dismiss Ms Buksh’s application under O 32 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules on account of her absence, but, having regard to the fact that Ms Buksh was unrepresented, proceeded to consider the Reasons for Decision of the Tribunal.  In her application to the Court for review of the Tribunal’s decision, Ms Buksh had not identified any ground of review.  Stone J saw no error which would have provided a ground for interfering with the Tribunal’s decision and she dismissed Ms Buksh’s application with costs.

4. This afternoon Ms Buksh has appeared before us on her appeal.  Although she had not previously supplied written submissions, she has been given the opportunity this afternoon to make submissions as to any error on which she wished to rely.  It is clear, however, that what Ms Buksh seeks to do is to re-argue the merits of her factual case before the Tribunal.  She has done no more than to refer to particular factual issues which were before the Tribunal, which were dealt with by it and which were also referred to unexceptionably by her Honour, the primary Judge.

5. There is no reason to disturb the orders made by her Honour.  Accordingly, the orders of the Court are that:

   1.        The appeal be dismissed.

   2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:             19 November 2001

The appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Lloyd
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	12 November 2001
Date of Judgment:	12 November 2001