SZAJJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 328

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAJJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 328

SZAJJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 184 of 2004

WHITLAM J
22 MARCH 2004

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N184 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZAJJ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 MARCH 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is 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	N184 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	22 MARCH 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing with costs an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) handed down on 6 March 2003.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent’s delegate refusing to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 

2. The notice of appeal does not state proper grounds of appeal, but it alleges jurisdictional error on the part of the federal magistrate as well as the Tribunal.  Two sets of submissions signed by the appellant have been filed.  The appellant appears in person and tells me that the second set of submissions was prepared by a friend of his who is a student.  These submissions merely reproduce excerpts from cases and have no relevance to the judgment.  The appellant also appeared in person in the court below, and it is apparent from the reasons for judgment that the federal magistrate was placed in a similar situation to that which faces me.  The federal magistrate accepted the submissions made by the respondent.  He held that the appellant failed to establish any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal and that the decision of the Tribunal was thus a privative clause decision.  The application for judicial review of that decision was, therefore, dismissed.  The appellant has not hinted at any error on the part of the federal magistrate in his disposition of that application, and it is apparent from a reading of those reasons for judgment and of the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision that the appellant’s case was bound to fail at first instance.  No ground of appeal has been made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:            22 March 2004

The appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the respondent:	Ms A J Houlton of Sparke Helmore
Date of hearing:	22 March 2004
Date of judgment:	22 March 2004