SZANJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 1349

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZANJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1349

SZANJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1049 of 2004

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
8 OCTOBER 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1049 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZANJ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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	NSD 1049 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

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

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	8 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the decision of a Federal Magistrate refusing to grant an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) of 18 March 2003, which upheld the decision of a Ministerial delegate not to grant the appellant a protection visa.  When the appellant appeared before me this morning he made some brief oral submissions to supplement a set of written submissions that he had sent to the court earlier.

2. The appellant’s written submissions set out a series of general grounds of review without providing any specific detail in support of any of them. Insofar as there is any reference to facts, I am satisfied on a fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision that no error has been demonstrated.  However, I feel it necessary to comment on the written submissions furnished by the appellant, because they are obviously a standard set of submissions that contain a significant amount of irrelevant material.  They evidence a set of “cut and paste” assertions prepared carelessly and without regard to the considerations of the particular case.  They are obviously prepared by someone other than the appellant.

3. The appellant’s submissions make general references to cases, and in one particular instance there is a reference to the appellant having claimed to be unwilling to return to Bangladesh because of a fear of persecution on the basis of “being a woman”.  The appellant does not purport to have ever made such a claim, and no such claim is recorded in the Tribunal’s decision, or the reasons of the Federal Magistrate.  Accordingly, the appellant’s written submissions have provided no assistance to the court in this case.  It is disturbing that such submissions are distributed with a view to presentation in court.

4. I asked the appellant to make any oral submissions he wished to advance to demonstrate that there were grounds of review on appeal in relation to either the Tribunal decision or the Federal Magistrate’s reasons.  He responded that he had not been given sufficient time to get all the documents that he wished to get from Bangladesh.  There was no indication of what these documents might be or how they might assist the appellant’s case.  Accordingly, I am not persuaded that there is any substance in this ground. 

5. This is an unfortunate case because the appellant appears to have relied on assistance from some unknown person, and the submissions that have been prepared by or with the assistance of that person do not attempt to address the issues that have been raised. 

6. I am satisfied on an examination of the decision of the Tribunal, and of the Federal Magistrate in respect of which this appeal is taken, that no error has been indicated in the reasoning of either the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

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:            19 October 2004

The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Counsel for the Respondent:	R Francois
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	8 October 2004
Date of Judgment:	8 October 2004