SZBFA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 395

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBFA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 395

SZBFA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 295 OF 2005

MOORE J
8 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 295 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZBFA APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent's 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 295 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	8 APRIL 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 17 February 2005, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 30 June 2003 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 

2. Briefly summarised, the appellant's claims in support of his application for a protection visa were founded on his religion (being a Muslim) and experiences he had in India.  While the Tribunal accepted some of the appellant's account, it nonetheless, for a variety of reasons, was not satisfied that the appellant had a well founded fear of persecution, as the notion of persecution is comprehended under the Convention.

3. I have read the Tribunal's decision and it is not apparent to me that the Tribunal erred in its approach to the consideration of the appellant's claims. 

4. In the proceedings before the Federal Magistrate, the applicant filed an application, which did not, in any real sense, elucidate grounds of review.  An amended application was subsequently filed in December 2003, and it suffered from the same deficiency.

5. I have read the reasons for decision of the Federal Magistrate.  It is apparent that the Federal Magistrate took the view that nothing had been raised in the amended application, nor in oral submissions, which established, even arguably, any judicially reviewable error on the part of the Tribunal.  I have read the reasons for judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 17 February 2005, and it is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate fell into error in his Honour's consideration of the application or in making the order to dismiss it.

6. When asked today to explain what may have been the errors of the Federal Magistrate, the appellant repeated a submission he had made to the Federal Magistrate, namely, that he experienced or had a well founded fear of persecution were he to return to India.  As I have explained to the appellant, it is not the role of either this court or the Federal Magistrates Court, to embark upon a consideration of whether, on the merits, the appellant is entitled to a protection visa.

7. In my opinion, the appeal raises no point of substance.  The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:            12 April 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	8 April 2005
Date of Judgment:	8 April 2005