SZAAZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 1151

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAAZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1151

SZAAZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 495 of 2003

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
15 OCTOBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 495 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZAAZ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal is dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s cost of this 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 495 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZAAZ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	15 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, an appeal has been taken from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court refusing an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”): see SZAAZ v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 133. No particular ground of appeal was specified in the Notice of Appeal, and no submissions were made by the appellant on the appeal except to say that he should not be sent back to India.

2. There is a description of a ground in the Notice of Appeal, namely, that “the RRT did not follow the proper procedure as regarded by the Migration Act”.  This ground is so wide and general that it is difficult to assign it any particular meaning or content. 

3. Counsel for the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Minister”) has addressed the matter and, I think, quite properly so, on the basis of the grounds set out in the Amended Application for Review before the learned Magistrate.  These were namely, that the RRT erred in characterising the arrest and imprisonment of the applicant as not being Convention related, and also, because the decision of the RRT was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have made it.

4. I am not satisfied that either of these grounds have been made good by the appellant in relation to the reasons for decision of the RRT, nor am I satisfied that any error was made by the Magistrate in the reasons for decision, which are the subject of the appeal.  There was some discussion in the course of the hearing this morning in relation to the findings concerning the reasons for detention of the appellant in connection with the incident in Delhi in 1998 and his subsequent detention and later detention in Madras when it became evident that he was being detained for reasons of breach of the general law.  However, this did not disclose any basis for review.

5. In all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that any reviewable error in the decision of the RRT has been pointed to, nor is any error in the decision of the learned Magistrate disclosed.

6. Accordingly, I order that the appeal in the present case be dismissed and that the appellant pay the costs of the Minister.

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

Associate:

Dated:             27 October 2003

The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Counsel for the Respondent:	M. N. Allars
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	15 October 2003
Date of Judgment:	15 October 2003