SZEVB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Ind

[2005] FCA 1373

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEVB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Ind

igenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1373

SZEVB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 970 OF 2005

EDMONDS J
20 SEPTEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 970 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:

SZEVB
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EDMONDS J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $2,000.

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 970 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:

SZEVB
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE:	20 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

EDMONDS J:

1. The appeal in this matter must be dismissed.  The notice of appeal as it appears in the Appeal Book discloses no ground of appeal on which the appellant relies.  Nevertheless, I have considered carefully the findings and reasonings of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) and it seems clear to me that the Tribunal took into account all relevant material that was put before it by the appellant in coming to the decision that it did.

2. Before the Federal Magistrates Court the only ground of appeal that remained live before the Court was that the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error by failing to take into consideration relevant material.  This was particularised in the appellant’s amended application to the Federal Magistrates Court under pars (a), (b) and (c) of that particular ground.  I agree with the finding of the Federal Magistrate that, upon review of the Tribunal’s decision, this ground, namely, that the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant material, cannot be made out.

3. The Federal Magistrate went on to consider the further grounds of review before him, which had been struck out by consent.  Having regard to the terms of the notice of appeal to this Court, it is not necessary that I undertake a similar exercise.  However, I am unable to discern in [14] – [17] of the Federal Magistrate’s reasons for decision any error on his part in relation to the abandoned grounds.

4. For these reasons the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

5. I will order that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.

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

Associate:

Dated:             28 September 2005

Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J A C Potts
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	20 September 2005
Date of Judgment:	20 September 2005