SZEVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1617

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1617

SZEVK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1504 OF 2005

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
3 NOVEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1504 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZEVK APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 NOVEMBER 2005
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 1504  OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZEVK APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	3 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Smith delivered on 5 August 2005 refusing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 10 June 2004. 

2. When the matter came on for hearing before me today, counsel for the respondent made submissions and directed my attention to the notice of appeal which alleges that the Tribunal made jurisdictional errors when considering the appellant’s application for a protection visa in that it misunderstood his claims, was biased against him and did not consider his application with the right procedure. 

3. The appellant appeared in person and made a number of factual submissions to the effect that the decision of the Tribunal and of the Federal Magistrate was wrong.  The appellant said that the Tribunal ought to have made further inquiries and also that this Court ought to make further inquiries and investigations into his case. 

4. The role of this Court is to consider whether there has been an error of law in the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate and whether there has been any error of principle in the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  Everything that has been said this morning by the appellant concerns questions of fact and raises no issues of law.  The question of the merits of the appellant's case is for the Tribunal and not for this Court or for the Federal Magistrates’ Court. 

5. Accordingly, since no indication has been given by the appellant of any trace of an argument that would indicate there is any error of principle or law in the decision of the Tribunal or in the decision of the Magistrate, I dismiss this appeal 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 Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:            9 November 2005

The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	3 November 2005
Date of Judgment:	3 November 2005