FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFBW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1372
SZFBW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 797 OF 2005
EDMONDS J
20 SEPTEMBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 797 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN:
SZFBW
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
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 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 797 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN:
SZFBW
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
EDMONDS J
DATE:
20 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)EDMONDS J:
In this matter, the appeal must be dismissed. The appellant’s amended notice of appeal is not grounded in any error of law other than that to be inferred from ground 3: that the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) failed to take into account all relevant considerations. On my review of the decision of the Tribunal, that ground cannot be sustained. Clearly, the Tribunal did take into account all the material which the appellant put before it. The inability of the Tribunal to be satisfied as to the veracity of that material does not provide any ground for judicial review. Moreover, there is no obligation on the Tribunal to inquire further as to information which might corroborate that which has been put before it or otherwise to support the appellant’s case.
I agree with the Federal Magistrate that no jurisdictional error is disclosed by the Tribunal’s decision. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
The respondent asks that I make a fixed costs order. I will order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.
I certify that the preceding three (3) 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 Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 20 September 2005 Date of Judgment: 20 September 2005
- AGLC
- SZFBW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1372
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1372
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had properly exercised his discretion under the Migration Act by failing to consider the appellant's fear of persecution and if this omission constituted a jurisdictional error. The court also needed to determine if the Minister had given appropriate weight to the appellant's circumstances and whether there was any error in the application of the relevant statutory provisions.
The court held that the Minister had not erred in his decision-making process. The judge found that the Minister had adequately considered the appellant's claims and the applicable legal framework. The court determined that the Minister's assessment of the appellant's risk of persecution was reasonable and that there was no jurisdictional error in the decision. The judge also found that the Minister had given appropriate weight to the appellant's circumstances, and there was no error in the application of the statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $2,000.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $2,000.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: EDMONDS J
Full text does not contain this section.