SZEVO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 1451

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEVO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 1451

SZEVO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1443 of 2004

WILCOX J
3 NOVEMBER 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1443 of 2004

BETWEEN:	SZEVO APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 NOVEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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 1443 of 2004

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

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	3 NOVEMBER 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of Lloyd-Jones FM on 1 October 2004 dismissing an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). A direction under s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) has been made, to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Court shall be exercised by a single judge.

2. At the hearing before the magistrate, the appellant was represented by counsel.  Counsel raised a number of arguments in support of a contention that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error in handling the appellant's application for merits review.  The magistrate, in a careful judgment, dealt with each of the matters raised by counsel.  He rejected all the arguments that had been put to him.  I have read the magistrate's reasons.  I respectfully agree with the way in which the magistrate dealt with each of those arguments.

3. The appellant is not represented today.  She appears on her own behalf, assisted by an interpreter. 

4. I had explained to the appellant at a directions hearing that the Court could not consider the facts of her case, or the likely situation if she returned to her native country, Indonesia.  Although the appellant told me she understood this, the only matters she raised today relate to her fear about the probability of persecution if she returned to Indonesia.  I have no view about the reasonableness of those fears.   That is not a matter for the Court to determine. 

5. No argument of jurisdictional error has been put to the Court.  I am unable to find any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.  It seems to me that the appeal must be dismissed. 

6. I order that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             10 November 2004

The Appellant appeared in person, assisted by an interpreter.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms D Watson, Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	3 November 2004
Date of Judgment:	3 November 2004