SZDOV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 375

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDOV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 375

SZDOV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1901 of 2004

WILCOX J
1 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1901 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZDOV APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.

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 1901 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	1 APRIL 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Nicholls dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. Pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Chief Justice has directed that the appeal to this Court be heard by a single Judge.

2. The appellant's claim for a protection visa was based upon an alleged fear of persecution on account of his political opinion.  The appellant is a national of India and he claimed to be an active member of the Congress Party.  The appellant gave to the Tribunal an account of his political activities and the consequences that had ensued from those activities.  The Tribunal member indicated he was prepared to accept that the appellant had been a member of a Congress Party but he did not accept the appellant's claims about his political activities and the consequences of those activities.  Accordingly, the Tribunal did not accept that the appellant faced a real chance of persecution should he return to India now or in the foreseeable future. 

3. At the hearing before the Magistrate, the appellant appeared on his own behalf, assisted by an interpreter in the Tamil language.  The Magistrate considered a number of matters argued by the appellant whereby he attacked the Tribunal's reasons and findings.  To a significant extent, the attacks raised matters of fact, rather than anything that could be regarded as jurisdictional error.  Notwithstanding that, the Magistrate dealt fully with the issues raised by the appellant; but, of course, bearing in mind the Tribunal's findings about credibility. 

4. At a directions hearing in this Court, I pointed out to the appellant that this Court could not review the Tribunal's findings of fact;  this Court could intervene only if it was satisfied that there was jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.  I explained the meaning of that term to the appellant.  He assured me that he understood the explanation.

5. Notwithstanding this exchange, the appellant did not advance any grounds of jurisdictional error today.  He merely indicated dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact.  This is a matter in relation to which the Court cannot enter. 

6. I have considered the Tribunal's reasons for decision.  I do not see any basis for imputing jurisdictional error to the Tribunal.  Nor do I see any error in the reasons for decision of Federal Magistrate Nicholls.  It follows that the appeal should be dismissed. 

7. The order of the Court is that the appeal 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 Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             12 April 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr A McInerney
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	1 April 2005
Date of Judgment:	1 April 2005