SZBGP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 420

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBGP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 420

MIGRATION – no point of principle

SZBGP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 242 OF 2005

MOORE J
23 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 242 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZBGP APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 MARCH 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time filed on 18 February 2005 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent's costs.

3.Costs be fixed in the sum of $1050.00.

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	NSD 242 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZBGP APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	23 MARCH 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This judgment concerns an application (filed on 18 February 2005) for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Barnes given on 18 January 2005.  That application was filed on 18 February 2005.  The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 11 December 2002 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 

2. The applicant is a citizen of India and a Muslim.  Without setting out his claims in detail, the basis on which he sought a protection visa was related to his status as a Muslim.  The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application for judicial review essentially on the grounds that no issue had been raised which might even arguably establish jurisdictional error. 

3. Before the Federal Magistrate, three general claims were made in support of his application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The first was that the Tribunal failed to have regard to the applicant's claims, though nothing specific was put to the Federal Magistrate concerning what claims had not been dealt with.  Secondly, the Tribunal had acted in bad faith.  The Federal Magistrate found that there was no evidence to support that allegation. The third contention was that the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant considerations.  The Federal Magistrate concluded there was nothing in the material to suggest that had happened.

4. In the application for an extension of time and the draft notice of appeal filed on 18 February 2005, there is nothing which suggests, even arguably, that the Federal Magistrate erred in reaching the conclusions her Honour did.  Accordingly, it appears to me that even if time were extended the appeal would be doomed to fail.  In those circumstances the appropriate order is to dismiss the application for an extension of time.

5. I order that the application for an extension of time filed on 18 February 2005 be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent's costs.  I order that the costs be fixed in the sum of $1050.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:            13 April 2005

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	23 March 2005
Date of Judgment:	23 March 2005