MZXTN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 1813

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZXTN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1813

MZXTN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

VID 715 of 2008

JESSUP J
25 NOVEMBER 2008
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 715 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MZXTN
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

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.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 715 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MZXTN
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE:	25 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 29 August 2008 dismissing an application by the appellant to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), signed on 13 December 2007 and handed down on 7 January 2008.  In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant a Protection (Class XA) Visa to the appellant pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). The second respondent, the Tribunal, has filed a submitting appearance.

2. In his application for review in the Federal Magistrates Court, the appellant listed 18 grounds of review, all generically expressed, and none of which appeared to have anything to do with the facts of the case.  Notwithstanding those deficiencies, the Federal Magistrate did his best to consider whether any of the grounds had been made out by reference to his Honour’s reading of the decision of the Tribunal.  He was not assisted in this respect by any submissions on behalf of the appellant.  According to his Honour’s reasons for judgment, the appellant did not particularise any grounds upon which his application relied.  The Federal Magistrate found that none of the grounds had been made out, concluding that the grounds, as broad as they were, did not disclose any error on the part of the Tribunal, let alone jurisdictional error.

3. In his Notice of Appeal in this court, the appellant relied upon the following grounds:

   1.Error of judgment by the Federal Magistrate Court should be re-examined and all material I presented to the DIAC, RRT and the Federal Court should be examine again by the Federal Court.

   2.There was no fair judgment for my claimed and this matter should be review through this appeal processing.

   3.There was no evidence from the India available during the proceeding of the federal Magistrate court, RRT and DIAC.  I request the Federal Court to provide full information from my place of birth and the place where I will be persecuted if I return back to India.

4. The appellant did not file written submissions in the appeal as required by directions given by a Registrar on 23 September 2008.  Neither did he appear in court today at 2.15 pm when the appeal was called on for hearing.  I allowed a further half an hour to pass after which time I had the appellant called again but again he did not appear and I have been invited by counsel for the Minister to dispose of the appeal on the merits without the assistance of any submissions on behalf of the applicant.  I am prepared to take that course.

5. As will be apparent from what I have said above, the Federal Magistrate found that there was no substance in the grounds of review relied upon by the appellant in his application in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The grounds relied on by the appellant in this court are, on their face, manifestly inadequate as a basis for alleging error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.  As with the grounds in the Federal Magistrates Court, the grounds of appeal here appear to have nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of the case, with the circumstances of the appellant, or with the reasons for judgment of the Federal Magistrate.

6. Since I have not had any further assistance on behalf of the appellant, I am in no position to uphold those or any other grounds of appeal in the present case.  I have been assisted by brief but relevant submissions on behalf of the respondent Minister, and I am persuaded by those submissions, by the tenor of the grounds of appeal to which I have been referred, and by the absence of any appearance or submissions by the appellant, that the proper course, indeed the only course for me, is to dismiss the appeal with costs.  I shall make an order in those terms.

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

Associate:
Dated:        1 December 2008

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing:	25 November 2008
Date of Judgment:	25 November 2008