SZBUN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1777

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBUN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1777

SZBUN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1783 OF 2005

STONE J
6 DECEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1783 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBUN
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first 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 1783 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBUN
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	6 DECEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 7 September 2005 in which his Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’).  On 8 October 2003, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 

2. The background to this appeal and the details of the appellant’s claims before the Tribunal and in the Federal Magistrates Court are fully set out in his Honour’s reasons. The Tribunal’s reasons are clearly expressed and deal carefully with the claims made by the appellant. Relevant portions of those reasons are quoted in his Honour’s judgment; [2005] FMCA 1307. It is not necessary to repeat the details here.

3. The Federal Magistrate considered ten grounds of review set out in the application to the Federal Magistrates Court.  In my respectful view his Honour’s rejection of those grounds was correct for the reasons his Honour gave.  As the first respondent has noted in the written submissions made to this Court, the decision in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v NAMW (2004) 140 FCR 572 to which his Honour referred has been confirmed in WAJW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 330 at [44-46], QAAC of 2004 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCAFC 92 at [7]-[30] and VJAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 178 at [11]-[16].

4. The notice of appeal filed in this Court is entirely without particulars and fails to challenge the Federal Magistrate’s judgment in any meaningful way.  The appellant filed lengthy written submissions that either related to his notice of appeal only tangentially or were entirely unrelated to the notice of appeal or to the Tribunal’s reasons.  As the first respondent submitted, the submissions appear to be a ‘template’ document in a familiar form making vague and unspecified allegations that are meaningless in the absence of specific connection to the Tribunal’s reasons.  That connection is not made and for that reason the appellant’s submissions are of little assistance.   

5. For the above reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.  The appellant must pay the first respondent’s costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:             7 December 2005

The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	6 December 2005
Date of Judgment:	6 December 2005