SZCLK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1735

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCLK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1735

SZCLK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1930 of 2005

WILCOX J
23 NOVEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1930 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCLK
APPELLANT

AND:

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be 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 1930 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCLK
APPELLANT

AND:

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	23 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett dismissing an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).  The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to refuse a protection visa. 

2. The Chief Justice directed, pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), that this appeal be heard and determined by a single judge.

3. The magistrate dealt with a number of submissions that were put to him by the appellant.  He observed that these submissions did not raise any question of law or procedure but were really arguments about the Tribunal's findings of fact.  This was so, notwithstanding that the notice of appeal that the appellant had filed in the Federal Magistrates Court set out certain propositions of law which the appellant was unable to support. 

4. The notice of appeal to this Court says that the Magistrate's decision:

   ‘Failed to find error of law, jurisdictional error, procedural fairness and relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.’

5. The notice said the Tribunal breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). It is correctly said that the magistrate failed to find any error of law in the Tribunal's decision.

6. Nothing in the notice of appeal identifies the particular alleged jurisdictional error.

7. When I asked the appellant today to tell me why he contended the magistrate's decision was incorrect, he said he wanted some more time to get documents and asked for an adjournment.  I refused this application, explaining to him that the Court had no power to review the Tribunal's findings of fact.  When I asked the appellant whether he wished to put any argument about the law or procedure adopted by the Tribunal he said that he could not.  Consequently, no argument of jurisdictional error has been advanced.

8. I have considered for myself the Tribunal's reasons for decision. I see no error of law or failure to follow proper procedures. There was certainly no failure to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act.

9. I have also considered the reasons of Federal Magistrate Scarlett.  I see no error in them.  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

10. The order of the Court will be that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             30 November 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms K C Morgan
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	23 November 2005
Date of Judgment:	23 November 2005