SZDPH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 347

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDPH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 347

MIGRATION – no point of principle

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(bb)(ii)

SZDPH AND SZDWN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 366 OF 2005

MOORE J
22 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 366 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZDPH AND SZDWN APPELLANTS
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 MARCH 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellants pay the 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 366 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZDPH AND SZDWN APPELLANTS
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	22 MARCH 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 17 February 2005. The notice of appeal was filed in this Court on 9 March 2005. The return date was 9.30 am this morning. The matter has been called and there has been no appearance for the appellants. The respondent submitted I should dismiss the matter under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) because the appellants have not appeared.

2. I have briefly reviewed the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The appellants failed before the Tribunal because, in substance, the Tribunal did not believe their account of their circumstances in India.  I could understand why the Federal Magistrate would have dismissed an application for judicial review from the Tribunal's decision.

3. The notice of appeal in the matter has the appearance of being a template and does not raise any grounds of substance.  Indeed, the first ground is that the Federal Magistrate did not observe procedures required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") or the Migration Regulations 1994 to be observed in connection with the making of the decision. Plainly that is a formulation used to describe erroneous decision-making under the Act itself rather than decision-making by a Federal Magistrate.

4. In my view it is appropriate that an order be made dismissing this appeal.  I order the appeal be dismissed and the appellants pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:             5 April 2005

The appellants did not appear.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	22 March 2005
Date of Judgment:	22 March 2005