SZAHN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 1577

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAHN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1577

SZAHN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1730 of 2003

WILCOX J
SYDNEY
16 DECEMBER 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1730 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	SZAHN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in the sum of $2,500.00.

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 1730 OF 2003

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

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	16 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

WILCOX J

1. This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Driver, delivered on 27 October 2003.  Pursuant to a direction made by myself as Acting Chief Justice on 2 December 2003, the matter is being heard by me as a single Judge exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The appellant is a national of Bangladesh.  He sought a protection visa on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his political opinion.  It is not necessary to set out the material that he placed before the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) .  His claim failed before the Tribunal, essentially because the Tribunal did not accept critical parts of his evidence.  The Tribunal also found that, even if the appellant had suffered some of the persecution that he claimed, he could avoid any repetition of the persecution by moving elsewhere in Bangladesh.  The Tribunal held that, if the appellant was at risk of being made to answer Bangladeshi authorities, that was for reasons that were not related to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  It was for these essentially factual reasons that the Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claim for a protection visa.

3. When the matter went before Federal Magistrate Driver for review, that Magistrate explained to the appellant that he could only intervene if there was a jurisdictional error.  The Magistrate was, of course, correct in giving that explanation.  As I have again explained to the appellant today, the Court cannot, in particular, review the Tribunal’s findings of fact.

4. The Magistrate recorded the fact that, when he invited the appellant to put oral submissions, the appellant told the Magistrate that he wanted someone to look at the Tribunal decision more carefully.  It seems that the appellant only raised concern about the Tribunal’s findings of fact.  In para 3 of his reasons, Federal Magistrate Driver said:

   ‘The matters put before me by the applicant and my own examination of the court book do not establish jurisdictional error.  I find that there is none.  In the circumstances the decision of the RRT is a privative clause decision.  I must therefore dismiss the application and I do so.’

5. I also have read and considered the decision of the Tribunal.  I have not been able to identify any jurisdictional error.  The appellant has not raised any matter which can be so described.  The only matter he has raised with me is his concern about the factual correctness of the Tribunal’s decision.  I find no error in the Magistrate’s decision.  The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

6. [There was discussion about the form of the Court’s order.]

7. The order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed with costs, assessed at $2,500.00.

   
   
   

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Wilcox J.

Associate:

Dated:            23 December 2003

The appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the respondent:	Mr S Lloyd
Solicitor for the respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of hearing:	16 December 2003
Date of judgment:	16 December 2003