SZDDZ v MIMA
[2006] FCA 1524
•31 OCTOBER 2006
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDDZ v MIMA [2006] FCA 1524
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
SZDDZ v MIMA [2006] FMCA 1174 affirmed
SZDDZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
NSD 1578 OF 2006HEEREY J
31 OCTOBER 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1578 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZDDZ
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 OCTOBER 2006
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 1578 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZDDZ
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE:
31 OCTOBER 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court: SZDDZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1174. The appellant, a citizen of India, applied for a protection visa which was refused. That decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal but the Tribunal’s decision was set aside by a consent order of the Full Court. On the second hearing of the review by a Tribunal differently constituted the refusal of the appellant’s application was again confirmed.
On the appeal to the Federal Magistrate, it appears that the grounds relied on were, first, the appellant did not have a fair hearing before the Tribunal and, secondly, that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error when it “took advantage of the situation created by the interpreter” which led to the appellant putting himself in a “scary situation”. In essence, the Magistrate found that there was no evidence to support the allegations of the appellant. I shall not repeat the full discussion of the appellant’s claims by the Magistrate which are set out in his decision which is obtainable on the Internet.
On the appeal to this court, the notice of appeal set out the following grounds:
“2. A single judge of the Federal Magistrates Court in his Honour’s judgment delivered on 9 August 2006 failed to find error of law, jurisdictional error of procedural fairness and relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.
3. The grounds of relief is very much similar with a recent High Court judgment Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal, Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30 (8 August 2002);
4. Recent High Court judgment Plaintiff S157/2002, Commonwealth of Australia (2003) HCA 1;
5.Recent Federal Court of Australia judgment AGDB v MIMA. I will provide more ground after received the judgment.”
The appellant was not represented on the appeal, although he was assisted by an interpreter. The appellant did not wish to add anything by way of oral submission.
The grounds in the notice of appeal do not make out any case of error in the Magistrate’s judgment. I agree with the Magistrate that there was no evidence that sustained the complaints of procedural unfairness alleged against the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey. Associate:
Dated: 15 November 2006
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: L Clegg Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 31 October 2006 Date of Judgment: 31 November 2006
0
2
0